In between the breaks, there were pieces of 2-3 minutes of trial.
Just like before, the court decided to reject an application to hear witnesses from India who could have exonerated one of the defendants - and with the same reasons as before: it would take too long for them to get the summons. One of the defence lawyers had researched the possibilities of sending a summons to the witnesses but the court wasn't interested. It appears the court is only interested in hearing witnesses for the prosecution.
The result was another challenge to the judge on the basis that this refusal to hear defence witnesses made it clear that the judge had already decided the verdict.This means that the trial is on hold again, while the challenge is decided by another court. We expect the result to be that the challenge is declined, just like the previous times.
All lawyers have agreed to a severance of the trial, so that the witness can be heard without the other defendants having to wait. This is an issue particularly for the three under-age defendants, who should not have spent such a long time imprisoned.
