Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi- LIVE UPDATES From Supreme Court

Bench: You may address whatever you want to say.

Sibal: It is my submission that these documents could not have been filed in these proceedings.

Sibal: The Ld. Solicitor instead of responding to the allegation against State in the voluminous petition only attacked Teesta.

Sibal: If your lordships are dealing with this issue, then we’ll respond.

Sibal: Closure report in Vol XI of SLP. Item F. Zakia, Rahul Sharma, Verma were witnesses. It was clarified in the report, it was clarified in the Protest Petition. Kindly see the note at the bottom. It cannot be said that the petitioner had come with unclean hand.

Sibal: No, this is only w.r.t. the complaint of the Petitioner.

Sibal: The complaint could not be brought on trial because it was not being relied upon in Gulberg. SIT had not raised this argument in TC or HC. The Supreme Court said the material so collected cannot be used in any trial.

Bench: This is the same trial.

Sibal: She was not appearing as a complainant, she was a prosecution witness in Gulberg. This logic would have been applied if she was appearing as complainant.

Sibal: There is a diatribe against the Petitioner. What I have shown is something to do with Zakia.

Sibal: Why did I not give my statement - your lordships asked this question when SIT was arguing. I shall try to answer this question.

Bench: In your case how will this apply.

Sibal: Our stage is much prior to this. I agree. The principles is that if the matter is to go to trial and the court finds other people are involved, a separate FIR can be lodged.

Sibal: So if they (SIT) have not investigated what is on record, they can still be prosecuted for conspiracy and a separate FIR would be lodged.

Sibal: There is another judgment that I want to show, your lordship. (2009) 1 SCC 441 para 67.

Bench: This you read earlier.

Sibal: I am reading for the larger conspiracy now.