legal infographic: The Battle of Legal Eagles: Tushar Mehta v/s Abishek Singhvi

The Battle of Legal Eagles: Tushar Mehta v/s Abishek Singhvi

The CBI charge

** Name of a new company has surfaced during investigations on Monday

** We have got just four days for interrogation

** Case has grown from India to a global level, from rupees to dollars

** It is a huge investigation, it has several links, several trails. It is a huge, enormous offence

** Karti is non-cooperative. To every question, he says he is politically victimised

** Interrogation is not to extract confession

** Whatever we have given in a two-page note is part of case diary

** It is arrogance to say, 'Whatever you ask, I will say hell with it'.

** Accused has right to remain silent when confronted with evidence, documents

** Even for relevant routine questions are also met with non-cooperation

** When phone is seized, Karti says 'I will not give password'.

** Have substantial progress made, we have new material

** We have video recording of Indrani-Karti confrontation, which gives proof beyond doubt. We will submit the video. We have other issues also

** It is not that one murder accused is relied on. One has to see the content and corroborative evidence. Indrani is one important piece of evidence

** Indrani Mukherjea is not the sole evidence. She is one of the witnesses. Case is not based solely on Indrani Mukherjea.

** Witnesses are approached, evidences are tampered with.

The Defence

** Karti has cooperated. No reason for police custody. He will continue to cooperate

** Interrogated for six days, including on Holi

** CBI unfortunately delaying things by hook or by crook. Liberty of accused at stake

** From 22 Aug, 2017 when he was last interrogated till March 1 there was no summons

** Objection to the note given by CBI on investigation. It has no evidentiary value

** In these days of custody, they have just a 25-minute confrontation of two people

** Next time, CBI say we found something new, give us two more days

** Can CBI say not answering question is non cooperation? Constitution guarantees right to remain silent

** Shifting stands of reasons clear malafide intention to keep Karti in custody

** You can summon me every day for a particular time period. The court can order that

** Custody is to extract confession. Nothing shown on material other than a note

** There is some video. Karti in custody and other is a murder accused. Can it be admissible evidence?

** Evidence Act says no confession made by an accused in custody of police officer, unless it is made before a magistrate, shall be proved as against such person

** CBI argument is that unless I get an answer, I will keep questioning. Cooperation cannot be confession

** Is non-answering be inferred as non-cooperation?

** There is thirst of blood and that is why the demand for custody. This is not acceptable