Surat: Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer on Thursday argued in a court docket in Gujarat’s Surat that the trial in a defamation case over the Congress chief’s “Modi surname” comment was “not fair” and there was no want for max punishment within the case. The lawyer made the argument throughout a listening to presently underway on Gandhi’s plea for a keep on his conviction within the defamation case.
A metropolitan Justice of the Peace’s court docket in Surat on March 23 sentenced Rahul Gandhi to 2 years in jail after holding him responsible for his comment “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname”, made throughout an election rally on April 13, 2019.
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA and the complainant within the case, Purnesh Modi, in his reply filed earlier in the identical court docket, had opposed Gandhi’s plea for a keep on conviction saying the Congress chief is a “repetitive offender” who’s within the behavior of creating defamatory statements. On Thursday, arguments from either side commenced within the court docket of Additional Sessions Judge R P Mogera.
Gandhi’s lawyer says trial wasn’t ‘honest’
Arguing for Gandhi, senior advocate R S Cheema advised the decide that the trial was not “fair”. The judgement by the Justice of the Peace was “strange” as a result of the trial court docket decide “made a hotchpotch of all the evidence on record”, Cheema mentioned. “It was not a fair trial. The entire case was based on electronic evidence, wherein I made a speech during elections and a person sitting 100 km away filed a complaint after watching that in the news…There was no need for maximum punishment in this case,” argued Cheema on behalf of Gandhi.
He additionally mentioned that Gandhi’s unconditional apology to the Supreme Court (in Rafale contempt case) was wrongly connected with this case by the complainant. Arguing towards Gandhi’s plea for a keep on conviction, Purnesh Modi’s lawyer Harshit Toliya mentioned his shopper felt offended as a result of Gandhi had tried to defame all folks with Modi surname by his remarks.
“He (Gandhi) was the president of the second largest party at the time of making the speech. His speech made a huge impact on the people of India and he also tried to sensationalise his speech,” mentioned Toliya.
Rahul Gandhi’s 2019 speech
“In his speech, Rahul Gandhi spoke about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But he didn’t stop there and went beyond it. He then said “Saare choron ke naam Modi hello kyu hai? Dhoondho aur bhi Modi milenge (Why are all thieves have Modi surname? If you search, you will see that extra such Modis). My shopper was harm by this a part of the speech and thus the grievance,” Toliya added.
Complainant claims Gandhi refused to apologise
He knowledgeable the court docket that Gandhi had refused to apologise for his remarks. Toliya mentioned Gandhi is dealing with comparable defamation instances within the nation and he’s making such defamatory statements regardless of tendering an unconditional apology within the Supreme Court up to now (within the Rafale case). Gandhi, who was the MP from Wayanad in Kerala earlier than his conviction led to a disqualification, made the “Modi surname” comment whereas addressing a rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019, throughout the Lok Sabha elections marketing campaign.
Also Read:Â Patna Court Summons Rahul Gandhi On April 25 In ‘Modi Surname’ Remark Case
Responding to Cheema’s argument in regards to the jurisdiction (as Gandhi had made the speech in Karnataka), Toliya mentioned though no objection was raised earlier throughout the trial earlier than the Justice of the Peace, the difficulty was being raised now. The arguments from the complainant’s facet will proceed after recess.
The state authorities, which has been made a celebration by the court docket, can be anticipated to make their submissions after the recess. Gandhi has filed an attraction earlier than Judge Mogera towards the March 23 verdict. He has additionally prayed for a keep on the conviction within the meantime. In his attraction, Gandhi termed his conviction as “erroneous” and patently perverse.
Â
