[LIVE-UPDATES] [MJ Akbar Vs Priya Ramani Defamation Case] Final Arguments By Senior Advocate Rebecca John

John sec 9 of the Evidence Act to argue that facts necessary to introduce the fact in issue or rebut a presumption, are relevant.

John: Ramani's truth must be allowed to be placed on record, and there should not be any objection to it

John: I have every right as a cross-examiner to check his veracity, to know who he is, and question his character

John: questions about Akbar's history of political affiliations are important 

John: It was a very difficult trial, whatever I had led, it was objected to

John: Ramani in her statement has given a detailed explanation as to why she used the word 'predator' for Akbar

She had said, 'predator is always stronger than his prey'

John: When the author of the article herself has clarified that the entire article doesn't pertain to Akbar, no controversy stands. 

John: This case is not about how hard Akbar worked, the case is:

'Before Ramani met him, she admired him as a journalist. But his conduct with her and with other women doesn't justify his claim to reputation', 

John: hard work is not exclusive to Akbar, and it is certainly not the parameter on which the court will judge the evidentiary value of both sides. 

John: Ramani has given a detailed explanation as to in what context she used the word 'predator', which is also corroborated by other defence witnesses