Krishna proved his innocence In the following context
Sons of Satwata. Bhoja princes of Mrittikávatí. Súrya the friend of Satrájit: appears to him in a bodily form: gives him the Syamantaka gem: its brilliance and marvellous properties. Satrájit gives it to Prasena, who is killed by a lion: the lion killed by the bear Jámbavat. Krishńa suspected of killing Prasena, goes to look for him in the forests: traces the bear to his cave: fights with him for the jewel: the contest prolonged: supposed by his companions to be slain: he overthrows Jámbavat, and marries his daughter Jámbavatí: returns with her and the jewel to Dwáraká: restores the jewel to Satrájit, and marries his daughter Satyabhámá. Satrájit murdered by Śatadhanwan: avenged by Krishńa. The quarrel between Krishńa and Balaráma. Akrúra possessed of the jewel: leaves Dwáraká. Public calamities. Meeting of the Yádavas. The story of Akrúra's birth: he is invited to return: accused by Krishńa of having the Syamantaka jewel: produces it in full assembly: it remains in his charge: Krishńa acquitted of having purloined it.
Similarly, Rama asked to prove the innocence of Sita.
Why did they even care about others opinions if they are not involved in guilt? Are there any references stating that one should prove innocence or to care others opinion on us? Or is it only valid for Kshatriyas to care what others think about others opinion on them?