Mumbai: Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s advocate wants full evidence of the Mahatma Gandhi assassination to be presented in the Bhiwandi court, which is hearing a defamation suit filed by the Rashtriya Swayamseval Sangh (RSS) against him.
On March 6, 2014, Mr. Gandhi had made a speech in Bhiwandi, holding the RSS responsible for the assassination. “RSS people killed Gandhiji and today their people (BJP) talk of him. They opposed Sardar Patel and Gandhiji,” he had said.
Rajesh Kunte, secretary of the Bhiwandi unit of the RSS, registered a case against Mr. Gandhi under Section 499 (defamation) and Section 500 (punishment for defamation)) of the Indian Penal Code.
On Monday, Mr. Gandhi’s counsel Narayan Iyer made two applications. The first one sought his client’s exemption as he is a politician and cannot be present in court on every occasion, which was granted by the court.
The second application sought to convert the summary trial into a summons trial. The difference is in a summary case, only the summary of the evidence is recorded by court, while during a summons trial, all the evidence is recorded.
Talking to The Hindu, Mr. Iyer said, “As this case talks about a historical topic, it would help the complainant and the accused if the trial was made a summons trial.”
The court will hear the case on May 2.
The Hindu has a copy of the second application. It says, “On July 7, 2014, the judicial magistrate first class had issued summons to Mr. Gandhi and had registered the case as a summary case. It appears that this was done in a casual manner without due application of mind. There is no mention of any reason or indication of any deliberation while the option of a summary trial has been incorporated in the said order.”
“Section 260 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure permits the magistrate to try certain cases in a summary way if he thinks fit. These words imply that the magistrate concerned, while passing the order for a summary trial, must disclose the reason for adopting such a course. It appears the order has been passed without analysing the facts,” the application said.
It also said, “The complainant is required to establish the contents of a speech made by Mr. Gandhi at the election rally, which are contained in a CD brought on record. No doubt, the first part of the trial would require proof. However, the main issue will be to determine certain historical facts on which the parties are at variance. Therefore, the major part of the evidence would comprise material of historical nature entailing an academic inquiry. Therefore, the court may please conduct the trail as a summons case.”
In the previous hearing, the advocate appearing for Mr. Kunte said if Mr. Gandhi is ready to accept his mistake, he will withdraw the case and have no objection to his bail as he believes in forgive and forget.
The court had granted bail to the Congress president on November 16, 2016, on the personal surety of Shivraj Patil, who submitted documents of a land in Latur.
