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

John counters the argument of 'why didn't remain she raise her voice before'

John: She could not speak up as there was a culture of silence. Wahab pointed out that there was no mechanism for sexual harassment at the workplace

John counters the argument of 'why didn't remain she raise her voice before'

John: She could not speak up as there was a culture of silence. Wahab pointed out that there was no mechanism for sexual harassment at the workplace

John: Complainant can't take the benefit of 'preponderance of probability standard' or the 'reasonable man' standard. he has to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

John further argues that the judgments cited by the complainant are contrary to the judgments of the SC on the issue of 'test of a reasonable man'. 

John is arguing as to how the judgments relied upon by the complainant can't be applied during the final arguments of a criminal defamation case. 

John: can a judgment which refers to pre-summoning stage ca be cited for supporting the arguments made during the conclusion of the trial?

John: Judgment cited by the complainant has no consequence, either to them or to us. 

John: Judgment cited by the complainant is from 1930, law has evolved since then.

She goes on to cite the two recent judgments of the SC to support her case on the burden of proof

John: Judgment cited by the complainant applies to a civil defamation case, and not a criminal defamation case. 

John: 'test of a prudent man/woman', is applicable to defence and not to the complainant.

'Complainant has to still prove his case beyond reasonable doubt', she argues.