Pune: The defence lawyer, Milind Pawar, on Tuesday filed a written objection before a special MP/MLA court in the city against the court allowing new material to be introduced at the evidence stage, without it forming part of the original record, in an ongoing defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of the Hindutva ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, has filed the case regarding the Congress leader’s alleged defamatory speech against the Hindutva icon, in London in March 2023.The court has concluded the recording of Satyaki’s chief examination, and the case is at the stage of cross examination by the defence lawyer. The case has been posted for next hearing on Feb 6.Satyaki had earlier submitted a CD, containing the alleged defamatory speech, along with a 65B (verification) certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, but it could not be played in court due to some unknown technical reasons.At a subsequent hearing, Satyaki presented a couple of pen drives along with a verification certificate and the court allowed them to be played. The defence lawyer then orally objected to this but the court overruled the objection on the basis that Satyaki had made an oral request.On Tuesday, the defence submitted a written objection before commencing with the cross examination of Satyaki. It stated that overruling the objection was “illegal, procedurally irregular, and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because electronic evidence cannot be admitted, exhibited, or played without following the due procedure prescribed by law.”The defence objection stated, among other things, that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the complainant cannot be permitted to introduce new facts, documents, or electronic material at the stage of chief examination which were neither pleaded in the complaint nor disclosed earlier, as such a course would impermissibly expand the scope of the complaint, amount to filling up lacunae in the prosecution case, and cause serious prejudice to the defence.Following the filing of the written objection, and upon the request made by advocate Pawar, the court adjourned the matter for further cross examination.
