The CBI files a revision plea in the Delhi High Court, arguing that the evidentiary value of approver statements is a "subject matter of trial" and cannot be dismissed at the discharge stage. (File)Evidentiary value of statements, of “both the witnesses and the approvers, is a subject matter of trial”, the CBI has contended in its revision plea before Delhi High Court, seeking that the order discharging 23 accused in the alleged liquor policy scam be set aside.A trial court, in its order, had criticised the prosecution’s reliance on the “uncorroborated” and “shifting” statements of approvers and other “accomplice-like” witnesses, while recording that an approver’s statement cannot substitute for foundational facts, and had also noticed that such statements of approvers saw subsequent improvements, all in the absence of independent corroboration of claims made in such statements.The CBI has argued that the corroborative value attached to such statements are to be seen “when evidence is led to support the charges and not before”.Additional facts that emerge from statements of approvers “ought not be brushed aside for the simple reason that the terms of tender of pardon to an approver mandate the full and true disclosure by such person for the purposes of evidence”, it argued.The agency also said TDP MP and liquor baron Magunta Reddy’s statements cannot be read as an accomplice-like statement, as the trial court had observed, since “he is not in a position of an accomplice or an accused” as only a bribe demand was made from him allegedly by AAP.With Magunta being a prosecution witness, and his son Raghav Magunta made an approver in the case, Magunta had reportedly met Kejriwal to seek support for liquor business under the new policy, whereafter Kejriwal had allegedly assured support in exchange for alleged bribes, to be routed through former BRS leader K Kavitha.Notably, Kejriwal’s name had appeared in the alleged scam for the first time in Magunta’s statement. The trial court had found that when Magunta’s statement is read in isolation, it “does not, on its plain terms, attribute any overtly illegal act”. It noted that Magunta’s statement “unmistakably discloses his conscious and active participation in the very arrangement which the prosecution seeks to characterise as a criminal conspiracy”. Given the accomplice-like stature, the court had noted that statements by him and his son, an approver, were “self-incriminating in nature”, and thus “the evidentiary value of such a witness is that of accomplice evidence”.Story continues below this adTo support Magunta’s assertion, CBI had relied on his son’s statement, and the trial court had examined whether an accomplice-like witness’ statement can be corroborated by an approver’s statement, and had concluded that such evidence becomes “hearsay”.Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Arvind KejriwalCBI