A P Singh, counsel representing accused Akshay and Vinay, told the fast track court yesterday that there was a controversy surrounding the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the manner in which it was recorded. He said he wanted Dikshit's testimony in the case to clarify the issue.
However, public prosecutor Dayan Krishnan called it a "publicity hankering exercise" and an attempt to "play politics".
In December last year, a magistrate, Usha Chaturvedi, had claimed that three senior police officers had interfered with the recording of the victim's statement. Based on that claim, Sheila Dikshit had written to Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, demanding a probe into the incident.
The public prosecutor told the court that calling Dikshit was redundant since Chaturvedi had testified on the authenticity of the victim's statement before the court.
The defence has presented a list of 14 witnesses on behalf of Akshay. Pawan's lawyer presented a list of seven witnesses.
Pawan had claimed that he was at a musical programme at the time of the incident. The list of witnesses presented on his behalf are to be produced to corroborate his alibi.
Akshay had told the court that he was not present on the bus in which the victim was allegedly raped as he had left for his village a day prior to the incident.
The defence lawyer has requested for CCTV footage from the railway station, recording Akshay's departure and a ticket in the name of Akshay's brother and the brother's wife.
The list of defence witnesses produced by Akshay included his relatives to corroborate his alibi and a bid to show that he had been illegally arrested and framed.