Gujarat Riots- "In Fact, The Prosecution And SIT Want This Material To Be Effaced From The Memory Of This Nation": Kapil Sibal Tells Supreme Court On Tehelka Tapes

A Bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar took up the part-heard matter for further hearing. Apart from contending lack of investigation and questioning the conduct of SIT in the particular matter, Mr. Sibal also argued on the bonafides of the Petitioner No. 2 (Teesta Setalvad), against whom he submitted the State and SIT had engaged in a lengthy 'diatribe'.

At the outset, Mr. Sibal recapitulated the submissions he had made on the last date of hearing, particularly the ones made with respect to the Tehelka tapes.

"Yesterday we were dealing with the sting operation…Would my lords be kind enough to turn to pg. 24."

On the last occasion the Bench had embarked on a course of enquiry that if the accused in the complaint were also accused in the other trial, because if their statements were recorded in those trials then the Court might have to refrain from looking at the material put before it by Mr. Sibal. Addressing the said concern of the Court, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Kindly record my statement. Other than Babu Bajrangi, who has been prosecuted in Naroda Pateya, none of the persons for which we have given reference are accused in of the 9 cases."

Seeking further clarity the Bench asked -

"9 case or any other case?"

Mr. Sibal humbly submitted that the same could be only answered by the State Government, because all the trials other than the 9 were being prosecuted by the State.

"That the State Govt. is to tell because SIT was not in any case other than the 9."

Trying to understand the argument put forth by Mr. Sibal better, the Bench reiterated,

"If they are in another case doesn't matter, they have to be named in this case, this is your submission?"

Agreeing to the same, Mr. Sibal furthered the submission -

"Yes. I dare say, they have not been prosecuted in any other cases."

Accused Statements accepted by SIT

Arvind Pandeya

Mr. Sibal pointed out to the Court that in a series of statements made by accused as recorded by SIT on the issue of Tehelka testimonies, the SIT had accepted the explanations provided by the accused, which Mr. Sibal felt, was a complete 'hogwash'. He took a step further to submit that the accused statements were accepted by SIT, merely to exculpate them.

"What his statement says and how SIT treats it - SIT accepts his statement. Accused statement is accepted to exculpate him by an investigating agency. And Arvind Pandeya is not an accused in any of the nine cases."

Anil Patel

"Anil Patel. No statement is recorded by SIT. If no statement is recorded why was he not prosecuted. He is not an accused in any of the nine cases."

Surprised that even after the Petitioner had brought all the relevant material before the Courts, the SIT had made no efforts to deal with them, so much so, that they have not even made any submissions in this regard. Mr. Sibal submitted -

"What's curious is that I having brought this to the notice of Mag, HC and this Court, the SIT has not dealt with it, they have not made any submissions in this regard."

Deepak Shah

"Then Deepak Shah. He denied committing any of these. Again, accepted."

Dhawal Patel

"Now, Dhawal Jayantibhai Patel. Again, not an accused in any cases. Again, statement recorded. Accepted."

Dhimant Bhatt

"Dhimant Bhatt. Not an accused in 9 cases. Statement recorded accepted."

Acknowledging Mr. Sibal's argument the Bench stated -

"That seems to be the pattern, according to you?"

Haresh Bhatt

"Haresh Bhatt. Not an accused. Same thing."

Ramesh Dave and Rajendra Vyas

"Ramesh Dave and Rajendra Vyas. Statement recorded and accepted."

Babu Bajrangi

Pointing out the various allegations raised against Babu Bajragi, Mr. Sibal distinguished the material on which he was considered to prosecute and convict him in Naroda Pateya and the material that is now before the court in relation to the complaint of Zakia Jafri.

"Babu Bajrangi is dealt with in pg 240. He was prosecuted and convicted in Naroda Pateya. What I want your lordships to note is Item J and K - Gujarat wide crime, meeting of minds...;Item M - Jaydeep Patel sitting in hospital and counting bodies of muslim to see if the 'job' is done. Item N, Item O, Item P. Over the page to U - spoke to Zadafia and was advised to run away. Then V. These items have nothing to do with Naroda Pateya…The other parts of the tape are part of Naroda Pateya."

Arms being brought in - undisputed fact not dealt with by SIT

The movements of arms, Mr. Sibal submitted, was corroborated by the Police Control Room messages, they were a part of official records, therefore undisputed. However the same was not dealt with by the SIT.

"…evidence of arms being brought in through police control room messages. I don't want to go into disputed evidence. This is corroborated by a PCR message. So, some statements of sting are corroborated by official messages. SIT does not deal with it at any stage."

SIT acted as defence

Reading the justifications given by Haresh Bhatt and Babu Bajrangi for the contents of the Tehelka tapes, he averred that in accepting their statement and brushing them aside as mere 'spicy statements', SIT had acted like the defence and not a prosecuting agency.

"SIT is now doing something that the defence is required to do, namely give an explanation. Were they prosecuting or defending the accused? They (SIT) said these are spicy statements."

Tehelka testimonies are extra-judicial confessions at best and need corroboration - Magistrate

Going to the findings of the Magistrate with respect to Tehelka, Mr. Sibal asserted that the Magistrate had recorded that the complaint did not disclose the allegations with respect to the Tehelka tapes.

"Under what provision of law you (Mag) need corroborative material. See what he (Mag) says."

Mr. Sibal read that the Magistrate stated extra-judicial evidence was not credible and needed corroboration. Taking the Court's attention to the fact that at the stage of deciding whether to take cognisance or not, the Magistrate had attempted to decide on the quality of evidence, which was beyond its scope. He further added that every material in the chargesheet had to be proved, but only at the trial and not at the stage of taking cognisance.

"This is to be done at the trial. The whole test is wrong. The approach is wrong. Then, kindly come to, see the last two lines of pg. 32. If there is a disclosure statement it is admissible under 25, If there is a denial you cannot rely on it because it is a witness statement…Everything in a chargesheet relied upon by prosecution is ultimately to be proved. Even if this tape has to be there, Ashish Khetan has to come to court and the court will decide. Here the SIT has not investigated. They have accepted the statement of the accused."

SIT itself relied on Tehelka sting operation in other cases

Mr. Sibal brought to the Court's attention the fact that the SIT had relied on the Tehelka tapes to prosecute accused persons in other trials.

"How can the SIT that had relied upon the sting, prosecuted people on the basis of sting, today before your lordship says that they don't find it reliable?...Milords kindly see what is happening here, the state chooses not to act, SIT chooses not to act, we are in 2021, what investigation will happen now after 19 years?"

Suspecting the SIT to have shielded the accused, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"They have in fact successfully protected the accused. In fact the prosecution and the investigating agency want this material to be effaced from the memory of this nation."

As he referred to the conduct of local police, the Bench remarked -

"How is the conduct of local police relevant here? That is why investigation was given to SIT."

Mr. Sibal apprised the Court that when all the nine trials were stayed by the order of the Supreme Court, there was no stay on the investigation of the State police.

"This Court passed an order to stay the trials, but it never said local admin should not continue investigation in other cases."

Scope of the Rejoinder

Demarcating the scope of the rejoinder, the Bench asked Mr. Sibal to only point out the best remedy that the Petitioner can ask from the Court and the allegations which need further investigation -

"In Rejoinder you have to point out what best remedy can be available for you. You have not referred to material on larger conspiracy. Local conspiracy has been dealt with, if there is something further to be investigated, point that out."

Sensing that Bench was not on the same page with Mr. Sibal, he submitted that it was not that he was not pleading larger conspiracy, but without proper investigation his hands were tied as establishing conspiracy would largely depend on the evidence collected after thorough investigation, which was missing in the case.

"Let me respond to your lordships. I pleaded a larger conspiracy, how do I establish it."

The Bench stated that he had not relied on the material of larger conspiracy at all in his submissions.

"We are saying otherwise, that you have not relied on the material on larger conspiracy."

Mr. Sibal argued -

"What I have tried to do throughout is in absence of investigation how do you establish larger conspiracy."

The Bench added -

"That the other side had shown, but you did not read that, so they have not dealt with it."

The Bench suggested Mr. Sibal, not to repeat his submissions at the stage of rejoinder, because they have already been duly noted by the Bench.

"What was indicated is this, your main grievance is that this material has not been investigated at all. We do not have to read that material again and again."

Worried that without proper investigation conspiracy cannot be demonstrated, he argued -

"How does this court determine whether there was a larger conspiracy or not?"

The Bench reminded him that the final report had given findings which can be looked into

"The final report says that."

"The final report is not a determination of facts. You may accept the closure report, but the acceptance is not acquittal in the eyes of law.", responded Mr. Sibal.

Reiterating his submission for the sake of clarity, he argued that upon diligent investigation of the Tehelka tapes, material with respect to other people would have surfaced, which ultimately could have been perused, to establish a larger conspiracy.

"My submission is if you have investigated this tape, you would have found other people in the conspiracy, which is a larger conspiracy. May not be a particular person that my Ld. Friend is reading about."

Putting forth his intention behind reading the transcripts, he argued -

"That is why I read the tapes."

But, the Bench elucidated that the tapes might establish a local conspiracy and not a larger one.

"That is local conspiracy."

Illuminating his understanding of larger conspiracy, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Investigation might show involvement of others, that is larger conspiracy. The larger conspiracy that I am talking about is not only w.r.t. person A."

Going back to the scope of the the rejoinder, the Bench asked Mr. Sibal to point out the allegations for which no investigation was carried out by SIT.

"Go allegation wise. Say for which allegation investigation has not been done, then we can look at it."

On the issue of larger conspiracy, he added -

"When I referred to these tapes, these confessions themselves disclose larger conspiracy which was not investigated by SIT."

The Bench emphasised -

"Now we will focus on what needs further investigation."

Mr. Sibal appraised the Court that its order of 2011 does not limit itself to the issue of larger conspiracy -

"2011 order of SC does not refer to any conspiracy. It says all the material collected has to be investigated. I do not have to proof conspiracy, if SIT finds conspiracy then accused would be prosecuted. Our case is that was not investigated by SIT."

State's inaction

With respect to the allegations on the State, the Bench pointed out that SIT had provided contemporaneous evidence to demonstrate the proactive role of the State. It enquired about the further investigation that Mr. Sibal felt, was required.

"SIT pointed out contemporaneous evidence that how the state reacted. This is the view of SIT. There is no statement of it coming from the top. There is only one statement and that was not enough. If you have something more point that out."

Clearing all doubts, Mr. Sibal stated -

"I have nothing for the then CM. I have not argued that. I have never argued that."

The Bench informed him, "In rejoinder, we will focus on the what further investigation you want…The assistance we are requiring in rejoinder is what needs more focus."

Mr. Sibal asserted that the stay put on the trial by the Supreme Court might be good enough to suggest the conduct of the State police.

"As far as everything was done by State Govt. come to 49. Is it not enough that this court stayed the trial because the State was not doing anything?"

The Bench enquired, "Weren't the stayed trials those, where investigation was complete?"

Answering in negative, Mr. Sibal stated -

"No your lordship. Further investigation was ordered. Supplementary chargesheets were filed. With respect."

Pointing out the two sides argued by the SIT and the Petitioner, the Bench assured that it would look into all the material provided by the parties.

"You keep saying that there was no investigation. SIT said that evidence was on record. We will see these."

Briefly recollecting some submissions, that he had made previously to demonstrate the standard of investigation, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Now Milord, your lordship knows that there were PCR messages that there was going to be violence. The gathering at Solah Civil hospital was not family members. The SIT has not looked into these…The Commissioner was to be asked why did you not seize the phones when violence was going on. Not a single victim statement recorded by the SIT."

Handing over dead bodies - SIT's submission contrary to evidence on record

He emphasised that, the submission made by SIT that the bodies were not handed over to Jaydeep Patel was contrary to evidence on record -

"On Tehelka, I am done, now I come to others. SIT said that the bodies were not handed over to VHP. Nothing on record to show that. The evidence is to the contrary. Kindly come to pg. 249. This is handing over of dead bodies. This is Hasmukh Patel."

To make good his submission, Mr. Sibal relied on the affidavit of Mamaltdar. He submitted that there was a controversy and one witness' statement was accepted by SIT over another -

"The controversy is that he (Mamtaldar) said that he was given oral instructions by Jayanti Ravi, she said that she gave no such instructions. They (SIT) accept Jayanti and reject Mamlatdar. Both 161 statements…Why was it handed over to VHP personnel had to be investigated. They (VHP) even got private trucks and they were escorted. Bodies handed over to VHP people, they were escorted by the police escort. Investigation was to be why they were handed over the bodies."

Post mortem in railway yards not investigated

With respect to the issue conducting post-mortem at the railway yard, Mr. Sibal argued that investigation was lacking -

"The same logic applies to post-mortem in railway yards. Why was a crowd allowed and the post -mortem was conducted before the crowd. Why were photographs being taken. These questions were never asked by SIT."

Violence before I pm - Contrary to SIT's submission

He refuted the argument of SIT that there was no violence before 1p.m. Reading from the official record he attempted to substantiate his submission.

"SIT argued there was no violence till 1. See item 13. 9:15 in the morning there is tension. Item 16. All these acts of violence were taking place. Record shows violence before 1, argument is no violence before 1 P.M…Kindly take 1375 of the closure report. 14 FIRs were lodged before 1 o'clock. So this argument that nothing was happening before 1 is contrary to record."

Two ministers in the control room not investigated

It was averred by Mr. Sibal -

"Then at pg. 43. This is the presence of those two ministers. I'll skip this because your lordship knows the respective arguments."

Commissioner of Police not investigated

Adding the conduct of Commission of Police to the list of issues that needed further investigation, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"The other matter that require investigation. Why was Commissioner of police not asked any questions if he withholds official information for 6 years rather. For Rahul Sharma they criticised, this man kept it for 6 years. These came in public domain after order of SC…No questions about why was no preventive action taken."

Violent Mobilisation and Processions not investigated

Controverting SIT's submissions on violent mobilisation at the time of the bandh called by VHP, Mr. Sibal argued -

"Why curfew was not imposed earlier when all of this was happening? 14 FIRs in Ahmedabad itself. These are part of the SIT record. How SIT could make this statement before your lordships? I wonder how."

He added -

"It is one thing not to investigate the matter and another for SIT to say things contrary to record…Only 2 preventive arrests were made and that too of people of minority communities. Why such incidents not investigated, has not come to light. SIT has not investigated police officers about why they did not investigate these."

Public Prosecutors not investigated

Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Now I come to Public Prosecutor. Further investigated was required to establish conspiracy."

Deployment of the Army not investigated

Contending the submission of the SIT that violence ensued the 8 rounds of shots fired by Zakia after Ip.m, he argued that if it was so, then why was the army deployed by 2.

"Deployment of army. If all this nothing happened before 1, there was no occasion for Central Govt. to do this (deploy army at 2). KPS Gill was sent in May, because even then situation was volatile. SIT did not record his statement."

Mr. Sibal distinguished Zakia's case from PIL proceedings in order to counter the argument of the SIT that the Court had interfered in her case, considering her to be a poor widow.

"When J. Bhagwati started PIL, in situations where people who are marginalised, if the offences against them or authorities are not dealing with them consistent with law, court will take it up though PIL. The argument was that she was just a widow so we(SIT)were helping her. I think the SC was not passing order to merely help a widow."

In order to indicate the bonafides of the Petitioner No. 2 and other authorities, like the NHRC and the Citizen's Tribunal in joining Zakia's plea, Mr. Sibal pointed out that given the kind of monolithic state that we exist in, ordinary citizens need such assistance to speak truth to power.

"Then NHRC, Citizens Tribunal, Teesta will come and fight for them. The State is monolith these days. Ordinary citizens cannot fight the State."

Only witness statements exonerating police were recorded by SIT

It was highlighted by him that the only witness statements that have been recorded by SIT, are those which exonerated the police officials.

"Only one instance where SIT recorded statement of witness was that of Shivanand Jha and exonerated them(police). Those who support police officer you take only their statement. With this kind of evidence, SIT cannot be given 'good conduct' in the role of an investigator."

Statement made by Mr. Sibal about the meeting of 27.02.2002

Mr. Sibal informed the Bench that he would place on record a statement w.r.t. larger conspiracy and the meeting of 27.02.2002. He read out the statement for the convenience of the Court -

"It is a statement of the petitioner qua larger conspiracy.

The Petitioner has made her submissions based on undisputed evidence in the form of Tehelka tapes and official communications…The Petitioner has not sought to allege any wrong doing ….with reference to facts which are disputed. The Petitioner contends that a larger conspiracy involving individuals whose undisputed extra judicial confessions are on tape read along with inaction of officials demonstrated by undisputed documents should have been investigated by SIT, which could have established a larger conspiracy…SIT limited itself to matters in dispute related to a meeting of 27.02.2002. Qua that meeting the SIT had concluded, which is part of closure… the Petitioner did not contend before this Hon'ble Court that a larger conspiracy emanated from the meeting of 27.02.2002 alone. In fact…no reference was made by the Petitioner to this meeting at all. The undisputed evidence on record points to a larger conspiracy

Which appears to have involved bureaucrats, politicians, PPs, VHP, RSS, Bajrang Dal and state political est. This is not investigated by SIT…."

Closing the issue of 27.02.2002, Mr. Sibal argued on the conduct of State -

"Nothing prevented the State to investigate from 2003 to 2008. But they did not do it. Thus, what the State says, that they have done what could be done, is contrary to record."

Special Public Prosecutor in Gulberg trial resigned

Mr. Sibal referred to a letter written by the Special Public Prosecutor in the Gulberg matter alleging the trial court judge to be hostile and disclosing that the SIT had not provided all documents to them. Only at the time of examination documents were provided, contrary to law. He submitted -

"'Full papers of investigation are not provided to us' [SPP] Now on SIT. 'Documents as old as 2009 was given to me when I was examining the witness'. SPP resigned and the judge was transferred. Members of prosecutors appointed by SIT was saying this."

Magistrate gave findings in a manner contrary to law

It was urged by Mr. Sibal that, largely the findings by the Magistrate were based on witness statements; 161 statements which are in contravention of law.

"The Mag. has given finding of facts based on 161 statements. I will give your lordship the pages. All these findings given by Mag on the basis of 161 statements is wholly inconsistent with the law. A closure report is a closure report, it is not proof of fact, it is an opinion. They read to your lordships the 161 statements and said that this is the conclusion. This cannot be done, your lordship."

Scope of Article 20 with respect to acquitted accused

Referring to the submission of SIT that further investigation would be in the teeth of the Constitutional protections of the accused, Mr. Sibal submitted that the same might not be true because Article 20 of the Constitution does not say that once a person is acquitted he cannot be tried on another set of evidence.

"Under A. 20 you cannot be prosecuted if convicted, but if acquitted you can be. Not on same evidence, but other evidence can come to light. Finality of criminal proceeding can come pursuant to a trial. The argument was made by SIT that if an accused is acquitted what will happen to him. They can be tried. Kindly see S.300 of CrPC"

Reading Section 300 of CrPC, he argued that Zakia's case was at the stage of cognisance and there was no question of acquittal or conviction.

"Dismissal of a private complaint or discharge of accused is not acquittal. We are at a stage prior to that. Even cognisance has not been taken. I do not understand their argument of acquittal…So, as long you stoke the fire, the pot will keep boiling. Justice, whether done or not done will be decided by the future generation."

Reiterating that Zakia's case was at a stage where no one was yet made an accused, Mr. Sibal stated that the hue and cry of the SIT in this regard was beyond his comprehension.

"Who is this accused they are so concerned about? Finality and everything? Nobody has been made an accused except for Babu Bajrangi and Jaydeep Patel. Jaydeep is not on the tape, he is tried for Naroda Gaam, Babu Bajrangi is on tape."

Shreekumar submitted the affidavit before supersession

On the issue of the statement of Shreekumar, Mr. Sibal apprised the Court that the affidavit alleging inaction of police and administrative officials were in 2002 itself, which was prior to his supersession. Provisioning a counter theory, he argued that his supersession might have been influenced by the depositions in the affidavits.

"Now see Shreekumar. He had filed several affidavit, but they were filed in 2002. No question of supersession then. This could not have been angst against the Govt.for supersession, that did not happen at that time. Maybe because he was filing these reports he was superseded - It is the other way round."

Rahul Sharma submitted the CD in 2004 and not 2008 as contended by SIT

Countering the claim of the SIT that the CDRs were lying with his for a long time and were only submitted after inordinate delay, in 2008, Mr. Sibal asserted that they were produced before the Commission in 2004 and the SIT was aware of the same.

"Then comes Rahul Sharma. The submission of SIT was that the CD was produced in 2008. but, He had submitted it to Nanavati Commission 2004. SIT is aware of the same."

Judgements referred to

On Commission of Inquiry

"Just give to your lordships a couple of judgments on the Commission of Inquiry. Kindly note down the judgments."

Statements made before the Commission are inadmissible.

i.Shri Ramkrishna Dalmia And Ors. v. Justice Tendolkar And Ors. 1959 SCR 279 para 9

ii. Kehar Singh And Ors v. State (1988) 3 SCC 609 para 36-41, 225-247

On Conspiracy

"I come back to the issue of conspiracy. Complaint is only a piece of information, it is only the starting point…Disclosure in the tapes shows conspiracy. Investigation should have been conducted, which might have led to a much larger conspiracy…Now a judgment (on conspiracy), your lordship."

Firozuddin Basheeruddin And Ors. v. State of Kerala (2001) 7 SCC 596.

"I have cited this judgment earlier also. .This is important 'Judicial inferential from proved facts'."

Contextualizing the facts of the case to the principle enunciated in the judgment Mr. Sibal stated -

"If you supply arms you know this will lead to murder, violence. Therefore, you should be aware about the murder, so you become a conspirator even when there is no communication. That is why I relied on the tapes."

"There is another judgment that I want to show, your lordship."

Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441 para 67.

Relying on the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Sibal argued -

"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."

The Bench enquired, "In your case how will this apply."

Mr. Sibal responded, "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."

In Gulberg trial Zakia deposed as a witness and not a complainant

Responding to a question posed by the Bench to the SIT, why did Zakia not give her statement in her deposition in the Gulberg Trial, Mr. Sibal informed the Court that in that trial she appeared as a witness and not a complainant.

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

Rahul Sharma was a witness from the inception

Referring to the allegations of the SIT, that the Petitioner had forged the complaint in order to remove Rahul Sharma from the accused because she was relying on his testimony, Mr. Sibal submitted that Rahul Sharma was a witness, which is evident from the closure reports and protest petition.

"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."

Diatribe against Petitioner No. 2

The allegations of malafide intention of the Petitioner no.2 (Teesta) to pursue the present petition as raised by both SIT and the State was addressed by Mr. Sibal, after seeking permission from the Court in this regard-

"There is a diatribe against the Petitioner No.2…The Ld. Solicitor instead of responding to the allegation against State in the voluminous petition only attacked Teesta."

Mr. Sibal requested the Court not to refer to the material pertaining to other proceedings relied upon by the State, while considering the locus of Teesta. The Bench responded -

"We made it clear when he (SG) was arguing, that we will not give opinion on other proceedings. We will not record findings on those proceedings."

Mr. Sibal read from his note that the challenge to the locus of Petitioner no. 2 was based on unsubstantiated allegations. He submitted that S. 39 of the CrPC bestows a duty upon her to inform the court.

"Is it illegal to help a widow, who has no recourse to justice? In fact S. 39 of the CrPC makes it a duty. S 302,303,304. It is duty to give these information to Court under S. 39. If the victims feel that the State has not been fair to them what is wrong with that. This means every victim who acts against the state would be characterised in this fashion. What is the sinister agenda? I was working with NHRC. She (Teesta) is not seeking any personal relief. She was doing it openly, not secretly."

The Bench stated, "SIT did not comment on the Petitioner."

Mr. Sibal responded, "He did briefly comment and then allowed the State to do that."

Addressing the issue of tutoring witness discussed elaborately by the SIT and the State, Mr. Sibal asserted -

"Tutoring a witness is not the same as guiding a witness. The injured witnesses were in such a state of mind that they needed (guidance)."

The State had relied on the statement of one Rayiz Khan who had raised allegations against Teesta for embezzlement of funds of her NGOs. Mr. Sibal made submissions to establish him as a stock witness of the State.

"I wanted to point out about Rayiz Khan. Kindly come to the table in 109. This Rayiz Khan was in our employment, we got protection for Rayiz Khan from this Court. Then his services were terminated…So, Milords, now he (Rayiz) is appearing in all cases against us. I just wanted to show his conduct. He is their stock witness in all cases."

The Bench will continue hearing the matter tomorrow.