[MJ Akbar Vs Priya Ramani Defamation Case] Final Arguments By Sr.Ad Rebecca John [LIVE-UPDATES]

John points out that Nilofar Venkatraman had denied all the suggestions put to her by the complainant's counsel

John now reads out statements given by Nilofar Venkatraman during her cross-examination 

John points out that Nilofar had corroborated the story of Ramani's encounter with Akbar in her examination in chief

John reads out parts of Nilofar's statement which corroborates the facts stated by Ramani in her statement

John reads out Nilofar Venkatraman's examination in chief

Nilofar had given the background of her WhatsApp texts to Ramani and her relationship with Ramani in her chief examination 

John now refers to testimony of Nilofar Venkatraman

'her evidence is relevant, admissible, and will help this court come to the conclusion that there's sufficient corroboration to Ramani's truth', John argues

John refers to Akbar's cross-examination

'He gave contradictory statements about his belief whether the whole article was about him or not', John argues

'Merely tweeting based on information which turns out be false, and which is not central to the case, doesn't make you an unethical journalist. Akbar anyway resigned 3 days after that tweet', John argues

John: Akbar can do whatever he wants, but they question Ramani's decision to leave Twitter

'It's not the evidence in the case, it's her democratic right to leave twitter', John argues

'These are women at responsible positions, speaking responsibly', John argues

John: complainant has questioned her about issuing corrigendum, she said she made an honest mistake

'I have hardly seen people on Twitter issuing corrigendum, it is irrelevant', John argues