Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the appellant argued that Supiyan’s name was not mentioned either in the first information report (FIR) registered by the authorities on May 3, 2021 or in the complaint.
He pointed out that Supiyan was also not named in the chargesheets filed by the CBI.
He also contended that only one of the many witnesses whose statements were recorded by the investigating authorities, named Supiyan as being involved in the present case.
As regard the witness Manoj who name Supiyan, Sibal said that he was not even on the list of witnesses, and has given a completely different picture of the incident in comparison to the statements made by other witnesses and the cannot be sustained before the Court.
“Even the statement of Manoj does not name the appellant. Notably, Manoj had not filed any complainant against the appellant. Manoj should have reported to NHRC or police authorities if he had faced any threat from the appellant,” Sibal stated.
Sibal argued that Manoj, who is a BJP worker, is a planted witness, proving that the case against appellant was purely political and completely malafide on the part of authorities.
“Appellant was not even present at the location. The investigating officer at the time of investigation has even ascertained the fact from the applicant’s mobile phone that he was not there,” Sibal submitted.
Source: Barandbench
