DNA results out, N D Tiwari fathered Rohit Shekhar

The Delhi High Court today made public the DNA test results of veteran Congress leader N D Tiwari, confirming that he is the biological father of Rohit Shekhar, the youth who filed a paternity suit against him four years ago.

On a day of protracted drama in the court, a division bench first rejected Tiwari's plea to keep the report a secret and then remitted the case to Justice Reva Khetrapal, the judge who had earlier decided to open Tiwari's DNA test report and declare the result in open court. After their appeal was dismissed, Tiwari's counsel failed to appear in court.

The counsel for the 32-year-old Shekhar and his mother Ujjwala Sharma accompanied the judge into her chamber where the DNA report was desealed. They emerged smiling. The judge then declared the result in open court, saying: "Tiwari is found to be the biological father of Rohit Shekhar and Ujjwala Sharma is found to be the biological mother."

Tiwari, who was not present in court, had his lawyer read out a statement in which he said that "no one has the right to look into my private life". "I have been a freedom fighter. I have the right to live according to my own wishes," the statement read.

The 87-year-old veteran Congress leader also said he bore no "grudge" against Shekhar.

"Due to my simplicity, at this point of my age, my trusted people hatched a conspiracy against me in a planned way. I have no remorse against them. My sympathy is with Rohit Shekhar."

Tiwari called it a fight of ego and personal interest between the two parties.

Sharma said truth had finally triumphed. "He (Tiwari) had done whatever he could do to delay justice. For years he had made false allegations against us, accusing us of blackmailing him," she said.

... contd.

ALSO READ

Sajjan Kumar's acquittal: Arguments on quantum of sentence on May 9

Mulayam Singh Yadav sets sight on Centre, seeks party's expansion

Attack in Jammu jail: India acted fast, but Pak took no action, says Ghulam Nabi Azad

Geetika suicide case: Court reserves order on framing of charge