Delhi: ‘CM’s testimony in assault case must be taken in-camera’

The directions, passed by additional sessions judge Ekta Gauba Mann of Tis Hazari Courts, came after special public prosecutor Pradeep Rana moved a plea that CM Gupta be called at 2pm for her “in-camera” testimony so there is no overcrowding in the court.

A Delhi court on Friday ordered that chief minister Rekha Gupta’s statements be recorded “in-camera” in her assault case from August this year,citing that she is a public figure, so overcrowding as well as breach of her privacy needs to be avoided.

The CM was attacked on August 20, while she was attending a weekly public hearing meeting. (RAJ K RAJ /HT PHOTO)

The directions, passed by additional sessions judge Ekta Gauba Mann of Tis Hazari Courts, came after special public prosecutor Pradeep Rana moved a plea that CM Gupta be called at 2pm for her “in-camera” testimony so there is no overcrowding in the court. The plea was not opposed by the accused’s counsel.

To be sure, “in-camera proceedings” are held privately with the bench, excluding the public and the press.

The court also formally framed charges against Sakriya Rajeshbhai Khimjibhai and co-accused Tehseen Raza.

The CM was attacked on August 20, while she was attending a weekly public hearing meeting at her camp office in Civil Lines. Rajeshbhai, an auto driver from Gujarat’s Rajkot, posed as a complainant and entered the venue. However, he was overpowered by the security personnel and taken into custody.

A Delhi court had recently framed charges of attempt to murder and criminal conspiracy against the two accused, stating that Rajeshbhai managed to break into the security ring of the CM and attacked her. “This prima facie shows that the accused Rajesh has come in a very calculated and well-prepared manner to attack the victim with an intention to kill…,” the court had said.

The court had also framed criminal charges against co-accused Tahseen Raza, accused of conspiring with him and giving him money to travel to the Capital.

Rejecting his plea for discharge, the court had said that Raza had hatched the said conspiracy in secrecy, and hence was liable to be prosecuted for the same offences.