The trial in the Nitish Katara murder case is set to take a decisive turn with the arrival of Bharti after a protracted legal wrangle.
NEW DELHI: The trial in the four-and-a-half-year-old Nitish Katara murder case is set to take a decisive turn with the arrival of prime witness Bharti Yadav back in India after a protracted legal wrangle.
However, mystery shrouded the return of Bharti, daughter of Uttar Pradesh politician D P Yadav, from London on Friday with her family and the police maintaining a complete silence about her whereabouts.
"I can confirm that she is in India. But I would not be able to tell you where exactly she is. I have not spoken to her so far. She will depose on November 29 as scheduled," her advocate S C Buttan said.
Speculation is rife that she is putting up in a farmhouse in Chattarpur locality of South Delhi, but Delhi Police have refused to confirm or deny.
Nitish Katara was killed allegedly by Bharti's brother Vikas Yadav and his cousin Vishal Yadav, the main accused in the case, who were said to have been against her intimacy with him, on February 17, 2002.
Meanwhile, Nitish's mother Neelam Katara said Bharti's deposition was "important to take the case to its logical conclusion as she can throw useful light into the happenings of that fateful day".
"I expect her to speak the truth. She saw Nitish going with her brothers," Neelam said when asked whether she expected her to speak against her family in the controversial case.
Neelam said she had met Bharti twice and spoke to her over phone before the murder of her son. "Even after Nitish went missing, she was the person who told me to file a complaint against her brothers."
The return of Bharti, she said, sends the right message to the people of the country as it shows that nobody, howsoever wealthy and powerful they might be, cannot evade the law of the land.
Bharti is set to depose before a court here on November 29 and media have been barred from the hearing of her testimony.
The court had allowed her plea for in-camera proceedings of her testimony, but rejected the demand that main complainant Neelam Katara should not be allowed to be present during her deposition.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}