Defamation case: Court asks for Dikshit’s medical records

The court in Delhi asked to Shiela Dikshit, the chief minister of Delhi to submit her medical records related to her treatment after she sought exemption from personal appearance in the defamation case which she had filed against former city BJP chief Vijender Gupta.

Annoyed by the submission of Dikshit’s counsel Mehmood Pracha that she was unable to appear before the court as she is undergoing treatment, Metropolitan Magistrate Namrita Aggarwal asked him to submit the medical documents before the court on April 27, the next date of hearing.

While allowing Dikshit’s plea for exemption for a day only, the court also observed that the matter was earlier fixed for today on the Chief Minister’s assurance that she would appear in person before it.

Dikshit had two days back visited a city hospital for a health check up, five months after she had underwent an angioplasty.

On February 18, the court had asked the chief minister to “positively” appear before it today which was fixed after the submission made by Pracha that Dikshit could appear on April 4, 5 or 6.

The chief minister through her counsel on February 18 had sought exemption from personal appearance on the ground that she had prior engagements at the Rashtrapati Bhavan.

Gupta, who is facing the defamation case, also sought exemption today saying he has to participate in a protest against the chief minister. While allowing Gupta’s plea, the court asked him to be present before it on April 27.

Dikshit had filed the criminal defamation case against Gupta alleging that the BJP leader used “uncivilised” language against her in the run up to the MCD polls last year.

Gangrape: Case fixed for Jan 14 for scrutiny of documents

In Delhi For the scrutiny of documents filed with the charge sheet in the case of the December 16 gangrape and murder of a 23-year-old girl, a court has fixed a date which is January 14.

The five accused — bus driver Ram Singh, his brother Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta and Akshay Thakur — were produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Namrita Aggarwal, who conducted the proceedings in-camera.

The five accused are at present in judicial custody. The case of the sixth accused – a minor – is being heard by a Juvenile Justice Board.

The victim, a paramedical student, was brutally raped and assaulted in a moving bus here on the night of December 16, 2012 and she died of injuries on December 29 in a Singapore hospital.

The court on January 5 had taken cognisance of the charge sheet against five of the accused yesterday under sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 376 (2)(g) (gangrape), 377 (unnatural offences), 395 (dacoity), 396 (murder in dacoity), 394 (hurting in dacoity), 201 (destruction of evidence), 120-B (conspiracy), 34 (common intention) and 412 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC.

Meanwhile, the court issued notice to the Delhi Police to file its response on an allegation by an advocate that the police and the Safdarjung Hospital were “negligent” in dealing with the case and the victims.

Order on in camera trial, media restraint in rape case upheld

A petition which challenged the order for in camera hearing and a ban on media reporting of the December 16 gangrape case was dismissed on Wednesday by the district judge who said it was “mandatory” to hold in camera proceedings in a case of rape and related offences, and that the magistrate had been “duty bound” to pass such an order.

A revision petition had been filed on Tuesday before district judge R K Gauba challenging the order invoking Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Metropolitan Magistrate Namrita Aggarwal.

The petitioners claimed that the day the accused were being produced, the Saket courtroom had a crowd because a large number of policemen were present there.

But according to the district judge Gauba, “the premise on which the grievance is raised stems from an erroneous understanding of the statutory rule”.

Gauba also mentioned, “The petitioners seek to question the order of the magistrate on facts. I am afraid this is not permissible as the judicial order is sacrosanct and cannot be questioned on factual aspects in the manner sought to be done.”

Aggarwal had passed the orders for in camera proceedings in the case after the prosecution said that the presence of the large number of lawyers, mediapersons and other people raised “apprehension about the safety of the undertrial prisoners”.

The district judge had asked police to reply to the petition filed by advocates D K Mishra and Poonam Kaushik who sought to set aside of the orders of the magistrate.

During arguments in court, Mishra said the media could not be barred from reporting the proceedings in the case as the “entire country wants to know what is happening in this case”.

In a reply filed on behalf of the Delhi Police, special public prosecutor Rajiv Mohan said the petition, which sought relief against a provision of procedural law, was not maintainable.

“The magistrate was within her rights, rather duty bound, to apply provisions contained in section 327(2) and (3) (in camera trial of rape cases) CrPC to the proceedings before her. .. I do not find any error, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order,” Gauba said.

Victim’s family for open court hearing

Ballia (UP): The family of the 23-year-old gangrape victim on Wednesday favoured an open court hearing in the case and said this would enable information to reach the people.

“They (general public) would otherwise not come to know of the developments and this might weaken the people’s anger, and the agitation going on against the rape and demands for a strict anti-rape law,” her family said.

 

PTI