Priya Ramani Was Selectively Targeted By MJ Akbar To Halt The Avalanche Of Allegations Coming His Way, Rebecca John Argues

While arguing before ACMM Vishal Pahuja, Ms John submitted that despite being aware of the allegations made against him by multiple women, Akbar chose to file a complaint only against Ramani to silence others from further making any allegations against him.

'Till now, he has taken no action against any of the other women who spoke out against him… He has shown some great anxiety in touching the hotel incident or the statements made by Ghazala Wahab', Ms John argued.

Today, Ms John also read out the testimony of Ghazala Wahab, and argued for the admissibility and relevance of the same, to counter the claim of 'impeccable reputation' as taken by Akbar in his complaint.

'Akbar himself brought the issue of his impeccable reputation before this court by producing character witnesses. Therefore, I have all the right to contest this claim to reputation by producing a witness whose statement should be admissible under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act', Ms John argued.

Further arguing on the issue of impeccable reputation, Ms John submitted that the law demands lowering of the reputation in the eyes of the 'public'. However, the character witnesses produced by the complainant are merely 'supporting characters' who are his close friends or aids. On the other hand, Ms John went on to argue, defence has produced a witness who is neither a friend nor a colleague of Ramani to counter Akbar's claim to impeccable reputation.

'This court must note that both Ghazala Wahab and Priya Ramani also have impeccable reputations. They are senior journalists, have written extensively, and have struggled to make a career for themselves. Their testimonies can't be doubted or termed as hearsay', Ms John argued.

On the issue of law, Ms John relied upon various judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Allahabad High Court to argue that the standards of proof are different for the accused and the complainant. Under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused is only supposed to establish the exceptions on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Once that is done, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove the substantive offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

'Despite the onus of just establishing preponderance of probabilities, I have proved my case for qualifying for the exceptions provided under section 499 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt,' Ms John argued.

The court will next take up this matter on September 19.

The complete updates from the hearing may be read in the twitter thread given below :