Kumar's statement denying all the allegations against him, was recorded by the court in January, after the examination of approximately 50 prosecution witnesses. Both Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special prosecutor B L Kalra and defence counsel R K Naseem have concluded their final arguments.

The CBI was to reply to the defence's final arguments on April 18. Ironically, before proceedings could begin, the same day, ASJ S C Mittal said that he had received a letter -- reportedly written by one R L Dhull of 3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj -- with some wild allegations against him. Oddly enough, no such person was found at the address. The judge requested District Judge K P Verma to take the case from him.

Mattoo, a sixth-semester law student, was found raped and strangled with an electric cord at her Vasant Kunj homeon January 23, 1996. She had 19 injuries.

Kumar, Mattoo's senior, was arrested two days later. His father, J P Singh, a deputy-inspector general rank officer of the Union Territory cadre is posted at Mizoram. The Mattoo murder case has been controversial from the beginning. It was transferred to the CBI from the Delhi Police within two days of the murder, among allegations of bias. Next, supporters and relatives of the accused and victim clashed in court during the initial hearings. And now, when the trial is nearly over, it has been transferred to another court.

In his order, Verma said, ``... there is nothing in this case which cannot be appreciated by any sessions judge at Delhi'' apart from ASJ Mittal.In an application, accused Kumar has opposed the transferring of the case, contending that as it is a lengthy one, another court will not be conversant with the evidence and documents; that someone interested in the complainant has sent the letter under a fictitious name; that he has been in judicial custody and if it is transferred then the disposal of the case will be delayed.

A May-25, 1997 High Court order directed that the case be assigned to either ASJ Mittal or ASJ Thareja. Although the defence counsel recently claimed that since the order was passed when the trial had not begun it has no bearing, Judge Verma said: ``At whatever stage of the case, the order dated 29.5.97 of the High Court was passed, we have to respect the directions of the H'ble High Court and not to impose our own discretion.''

The date for further proceedings in ASJ Thareja's court has been fixed for April 25.