February 20, 2018 09:52 PM

Chandigarh (Face2News)

The much hyped Varnika Kundu case took a new turn during the trial in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Baljinder Singh on Tuesday when the defence lawyer Rabindra Pandit sought an inquiry into the forgery of complainant Varnika Kundu’s signatures by her father V.S. Kundu on both the memo before the police at the Housing Board Intersection and the subsequent complaint filed in Police Station Sector 26 on the night intervening August 4-5, 2017. He also sought their prosecution under purview of Section 340 CrPC on this count.

In an application moved on behalf of his client Vikas Barala, the defence lawyer claimed that Varnika was not present at either of the two places and her father forged her signatures at both places on fabricated documents. The forgery had been got verified by a private handwriting and document expert and if the court so desired it could get the signatures matched by the CFSL.

Making out a case for the inquiry, the defence lawyer said that Varnika and her father V.S. Kundu had tried to implicate and secure the conviction of the applicant and his co-accused on the basis of the forgery and had also interfered in the administration of justice, for which they should be dealt with a heavy hand.

He reiterated his argument that the applicant and his co-accused had been targeted by the complainant and her father with a view to get social and political mileage at the behest of rival political parties to malign the political image of the applicant’s father.

The defence lawyer said that the applicant tried his level best to procure the CCTV footage of the Sector 26 police station pertaining to the night intervening August 4-5, 2017 to establish that Varnika Kundu was not present at the time of filing the complaint. Despite various legal efforts, the police did not provide the footage. The applicant had also applied to the trial court for the footage to the supplied to him.

He reaffirmed that V.S. Kundu fabricated a false complaint in the police station in league with advocate Rajdeep Takoria, who was present in the police station with V.S. Kundu. To wriggle out of this situation, the police denied the applicant access to the CCTV footage giving the excuse that it was not available with the police station. At this point, the defence lawyer also asserted that the applicant reserved the right to move an application in the court at an appropriate time against the erring police officials who had given information under the RTI Act to the effect that no advocate was present in PS Sector 26 with Varnika and her father V.S. Kundu.

While cross examining three police officials posted at the Police control room on the night of the incident, after they gave their evidence to the court, the defence lawyer maintained that the entire alleged conversation between Varnika and the police control room was false and had been fabricated by the police in connivance with the Kundus.

Have something to say? Post your comment
Copyright © 2017, Face 2 News, All rights reserved. Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Disclaimers