[Live-Updates] Defamation Case By MJ Akbar Against Priya Ramani- Final Arguments By Sr.Ad. Rebecca John

John refers to Ramani's statements made under sec 251 of CrPC

'In that statement Ramani had pleaded not guilty and claimed truth as her defence', John argues

John: defamation is not an absolute offence, it's a justifiable offece. That's why the court shall look at the ingredients of this offence differently from the other offences 

John: With reference to Ramani's admission, Ingredient 1 of sec 499 is satisfied.

'Ramani's only contestation is that the entire article doesn't refer to Akbar, as argued by the complainant', John argues

Ingredient 1: publishes a statement or imputation concerning a person

Ingredient 2: with an intention to harm the reputation

Ingredient 3: due to that imputation, reputation is harmed

John reads out section 499 of IPC which details the offence of defamation

'I will breakdown 499 into 3 ingredients', John submits

John reads out the timeline of the case, informing the court on what dates did the examination and cross-examination of witnesses take place

John: testimony of Nilofar Venkatraman was used for the purpose of corroborating the statements made by Ramani

'Before Ramani's tweet, Ghazala Wahab wrote an article for The Wire.in detailing her experience with Akbar', John submits

John argues that it is Ramani's case that she had a chat with Ghazala Wahab who had asked her, 'when will the revelations against Akbar will see the light of day.'

John argues that Ramani wrote the Vogue article in the context of #MeToo movement and the Harvey Weinstein revelations that were taking over America

John argues that Ramani's instance with Akbar refers to the period when she had come back from the US and sought a job at the Asian Age

'Prior to going to the Oberoi for my interview, Ramani had a chat with Nilofar Venkatraman', John argues