Cannot permit narrative to replace evidence, says Delhi court, discharges K Kavitha

NEw new delhi, Courts cannot allow the ram of a narration to put back the discipline of evidence and however serious allegations might appear, they must withstand scrutiny under settled legal principles, a judge said on Friday while discharging Telangana Jagruthi president K Kavitha and 22 others in the Delhi excise-policy case.Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue district court here said the only material relied upon by the CBI to indicate a link between Kavitha and former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal was the statement of Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy."According to him, when he met Accused 18 , he was told that Accused 17 would call him. Beyond this assertion, no circumstance, meeting, communication or overt act is attributed to them jointly, and notwithstanding the absence of any further material, they have been portrayed as principal actors operating through intermediaries," the judge observed.He took note of the prosecution's allegation that when Reddy visited Kavitha's residence in March 2021, she had talked about arranging ₹100 crore as upfront money."The manner in which this allegation is presented suggests that even before the alleged June meeting of co-conspirators, the entire arrangement stood settled. This would mean that one person had already anticipated a collective decision that was yet to take place," the judge said.He added that instead of strengthening the case, the introduction of the statements of Reddy and his son and approver Raghav Magunta to project the demand, payment and utilisation of the alleged upfront money "internally strained" the Central Bureau of Investigation's theory."Even if the material is taken at face value, a straightforward reading raises doubts as to whether the investigation has traced a coherent chain or whether isolated events have been placed together to create the appearance of a larger design," the court said.It also trashed the allegation that Kavitha received undue benefits through a sham land deal in consideration of the favour shown to another accused, Sarath Chandra Reddy, in the award of retail zones as "bereft of evidentiary foundation".The judge said the attempt to treat the land transaction as a vehicle for recoupment was also internally inconsistent with the prosecution's narrative.Regarding the allegation that a corporate social responsibility contribution of ₹80 lakh was made by Aurobindo Pharma Limited to the Telangana Jagruthi in June 2021 as a concealed mode of transferring illegal gratification to Kavitha, the court said it was not legally sustainable."From the material presently available, the CSR contribution appears as a disclosed and accounted transaction, unsupported by evidence of demand, quid pro quo, concealment or misuse. The allegation rests on inference rather than demonstrable linkage to any corrupt act," it said.The court said the record did not disclose any "coordinated funding mechanism" attributable to Kavitha.It said criminal law does not proceed on impression, but on admissible material."On closer examination, the apparent coherence rests largely on statements of witnesses who stand on a similar footing. One accomplice-like witness is shown to support another and the approver's version is said to be strengthened by a witness whose own role, as per the prosecution, is not free from suspicion," the court observed.It said when the statements of Reddy, Magunta and others, forming part of the same alleged chain, were relied upon to support each other, and when there was no documentary proof, financial trail or electronic record standing independently to prove those, the prosecution's narrative was legally fragile."The fragility becomes more pronounced when each link is examined separately date, place, mode of transfer, route of movement whereupon the gaps become visible. Essential facts are left to inference, the route of money is unclear, the timing does not align, the alleged recoupment precedes the very profits from which it is said to arise," the court said.It said courts cannot "permit the force of a narrative to replace the discipline of evidence"."However serious the allegations may appear, they must withstand scrutiny under settled legal principles. When so examined, what is projected as a single, coherent design may, in truth, consist of a chain of assertions resting upon one another, without firm and independent support."Like a pack of cards, once the base is unsettled, the entire arrangement begins to give way. That is precisely what has occurred here," the court said.This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.