Testimony in Nitish Katara murder case
NEW DELHI: Bharti Yadav, a key prosecution witness in the Nitish Katara murder case, on Tuesday moved the trial court seeking withdrawal of its directions to the Ghaziabad police and the Delhi police to provide security to her during her travel to and from the court to depose in the case on November 29.
In her application filed through her counsel, she also urged the court to withdraw its direction allowing presence of Neelam Katara, mother of deceased Nitish Katara, in the court during her deposition.
The application said that the presence of Ms. Neelam Katara in the court during the recording of Bharti Yadav's statement would cause prejudice to her and she would feel uncomfortable.
About the direction for providing security to her, the application contended that the security would be used to keep surveillance on her and would cause harassment to her and disturb her privacy and liberty. The petitioner earlier had sought recording of her evidence in camera on apprehension that the conduct of the proceedings in the open court could lead to her character assassination, the application stated.
While making his submission, counsel for the petitioner did not mean a physical attack on the petitioner, the application said.
When the prosecution in the Delhi High Court had sought security for the witness, her counsel opposed it, the application said.
Counsel for the petitioner in the High Court, R.N. Mittal, submitted that "we will take care of her security''.
Additional Sessions Judge Ravinder Kaur, conducting trial of the case, is likely to take up the application for hearing on November 23 along with other connected matters.
Meanwhile, Ms. Neelam Katara moved the High Court seeking directions to allow B.S. Joon, Public Prosecutor in the case, to perform his duty without any interference.
Ms. Katara filed the petition following a legal notice served on the prosecutor by Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav, facing trial in the case, alleging that Mr. Joon had damaged their reputation by submitting in the trial court that the signature purported to be of Ms. Bharti on a fax message seeking recording of her evidence through video conferencing was fake as people in Ghaziabad had inferred that it was done by one of them. On receiving the notice, Mr. Joon moved the trial court urging it to make a reference to the High Court for initiating contempt of court proceedings against the accused.
He submitted that whatever he had submitted about Bharti's purported signature on the fax message was in assistance of court and based on forensic examination of her claimed signature.