Jiah Khan suicide case trial: The actress’s mother and lawyer absent at court

Jiah Khan’s suicide in June 2013 had shocked the entire nation. But what started as a sensational suicide case, has still not met its culmination. Jiah’s then-boyfriend Sooraj Pancholi has been charged under section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, for which he has pleaded not guilty. The trial began on Wednesday in the sessions court where the actor was present for the first hearing. 

However, Jiah’s mother Rabiya Khan, who had made all the allegations against Sooraj, was conspicuous by her absence at the hearing. A source close to Sooraj tells us, “The case was getting delayed each time. It’s been almost five years and nothing was progressing. So, the actor and his lawyer Prashant Patil requested the court to frame the charges so that the hearings would begin. Time and again, Rabiya (Khan) has been delaying the whole case. On Wednesday, although Sooraj and his lawyer reached the court for the hearing, neither Rabiya nor her lawyer were present.”

Sooraj’s lawyer requested the court to send summons to Rabiya and the honourable court had agreed to do so. But the list of witnesses was not filed by the prosecutor, who was also missing because of his personal reasons. So when the team went back in the afternoon, they got to know that since the list wasn’t there, the court has first ordered the prosecution to file that by February 21, which is also the date chosen for the next hearing on the case and summons have been issued to Rabiya.  

Rabiya’s absence from the hearing raised quite a few eyebrows. In accordance with the law, if she isn’t present for the second hearing next Wednesday, a bailable warrant will be issued against her. If she doesn’t turn up even after that, a non-bailable warrant will be issued to produce Rabiya in court. 

When contacted, Prashant Patil said, “My client has requested the Hon’ble Court to issue summons to the Complainant as the charges in the said matter are framed and now the matter is kept for evidence of witnesses. However, as the list of witnesses was not filed by the prosecution hence, the Hon’ble Court has directed the prosecution to file the list of witnesses in the said matter.”

He further adds, “Meanwhile, the Complainant’s lawyer made certain submissions, which were objected by us as the Complainant has no locus to address the Hon’ble Court directly even according to the orders passed previously. I have filed a pursis to that effect that in spite of specific orders passed by the Hon’ble Court, the Complainants lawyer is directly addressing the Court and has thus committed contempt of Court orders.”