11 April,2017 07:15 PM IST | | Sailee Dhayalkar
In what could be an advantageous turn of events for embattled singer and composer Ankit Tiwari, accused of raping a 31-year-old woman on several occasions between 2012-13, she has, according to the prosecution, turned hostile in court
Ankit Tiwari
In what could be an advantageous turn of events for embattled singer and composer Ankit Tiwari, accused of raping a 31-year-old woman on several occasions between 2012-13, she has, according to the prosecution, turned hostile in court. Now, the public prosecutor has filed another application in the court to recall her for testifying in court.
Also read - Rape case: Bailable warrant issued against singer Ankit Tiwari
On December 19, 2015, a Sessions court had charged Tiwari under Sections 376 (rape), 493 (cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage), 417 (cheating) and 506 (2) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The charges were challenged before the high court, wherein the HC asked Tiwari to file a discharge application, but it was rejected by the sessions court. The court then framed the charges against him on February 10, to which Tiwari pleaded not guilty. Two hearings in, on March 3, the survivor deposed in the court. According to sources in the hearing, while on the first day, she just spoke about how she met Tiwari, during the second hearing, on March 23, she was deemed hostile by the prosecution for not standing by her statement to the cops.
Also read: Singer Ankit Tiwari's discharge plea in rape case rejected
On the same day, the prosecution filed an application to recall the survivor, which will now be heard on the next hearing on April 12.
When mid-day contacted Tiwari's brother Ankur, he said, "We are not aware of this development."
Also read - Mumbai: Court slaps Rs 5,000 fine on Ankit Tiwari for delaying proceedings
Tiwari's lawyer, Rizwan Merchant, however said, "Please refrain from bringing this matter into public glare, as the court has ordered an in-camera trial and any observations about the events will not only amount to interference in justice, but also to contempt of the orders of court."
