Chandigarh stalking: Varnika says call details wrong, points out technical errors
Varnika counters Barala’s lawyer at cross-examination, points out ‘technical errors’ in her call details on night of stalking.punjab Updated: Jan 10, 2018 12:18 IST
Not only was Varnika Kundu present at Chamkaur Sahib on the night she was allegedly stalked by Vikas Barala and his friend Ashish Kumar on Madhya Marg in Chandigarh, she covered 250-km distance between Kullu and Parwanoo within nine minutes.
Using the same call details that Barala’s lawyer flashed in the court on Monday to put a question mark on Varnika’s claims, the 29-year-old disc jockey pointed out “multiple technical errors” to dodge the defence attack in court on Tuesday.
Taking everyone by surprise, Varnika requested the court during the last leg of her cross-examination to allow her to go through her call records of the intervening night of August 4 and 5 last year.
While the defence counsel opposed her plea, stating that there was no such provision once the cross-examination was over, the court allowed her request.
A few minutes into examining the records, Varnika pointed out that there were “multiple technical errors” in the mobile tower locations. She said the tower location showed her at Kullu at one point and at Parwanoo an hour later, which she said wasn’t possible given the distance between the two.
When defence counsel Rabindra Pandit asked Varnika whether she mentioned in her statement that the accused intended to stop her car multiple times, she said she didn’t.
Varnika said an hour later she was shown to be at Panchkula, and hence the call details couldn’t be trusted completely. The call records actually showed Varnika at Kullu at 11:31pm and at Parwanoo at 11:40 pm. Later, senior public prosecutor Manu Kakkar added that it wasn’t possible for her to cover the distance in nine minutes.
Meanwhile, Varnika maintained her composure during the cross-examination on both days. She also took to Facebook later in the evening, calling it a “gruelling and nerve-racking experience, to say the least”.
‘Didn’t mention kidnapping’
Earlier, Varnika admitted in court that she could not recall whether she had specifically used the word abduction in her statement recorded before the magistrate on August 5.
Similarly, when defence counsel Rabindra Pandit asked her whether she mentioned in her statement that the accused intended to stop her car multiple times, she said she didn’t.
Varnika said she wasn’t aware that all facts after the incident were also to be reported before the magistrate. This came up when Pandit questioned her as to why she didn’t mention that she returned to the Housing Board light point after the cops called her about nabbing the accused.