Actress assault case: Director General of Prosecution, Special Public Prosecutor make serious remarks against trial court judge

In a legal opinion submitted to the Kerala government, the Director General of Prosecution (DGP) and the Special Public Prosecutor, while seeking approval to file an appeal against actor Dileep’s acquittal in the actress assault case, reportedly made serious remarks against the trial court judge.

The legal opinion reportedly contains serious observations and grounds for appeal. The primary argument is that the trial court judge was under a cloud of suspicion in the ongoing controversy surrounding the unauthorised access and potential tampering of the memory card containing visual evidence of the assault while it was in the court’s custody. The prosecution argues that, under Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a judge should not try a case in which they may have a personal interest or are a party to related allegations, which, the opinion argues, should have disqualified her from delivering the verdict.

Advertisement

The legal advice also states that despite the submission of a lot of serious evidence against Dileep, the court rejected everything with bias. The judge behaved in a discriminatory manner, it said.

The prosecution alleged that it applied different yardsticks when it came to key accused Pulsar Suni and actor Dileep. Even the evidence accepted against accused one to six was not accepted against Dileep. Dileep’s lawyers, who were found to have conspired to destroy evidence, were allowed to continue, it further states.

The awarded sentences amounted to the bare minimum punishment, the prosecution said, as it also sought to file an appeal on this count. The jail sentence and fine imposed on Pulsar Suni and five others were shockingly low and violated the guidelines of the Supreme Court that the trial courts are required to consider while awarding sentences in gang-rape cases, the prosecution said.

The prosecution also alleged that the trial court misquoted certain witnesses and cited portions of testimony out of context to create false narratives to justify Dileep’s acquittal. Several crucial witnesses were intentionally disbelieved on flimsy and unsustainable grounds. Clear admissions, including judicial confessions by the acquitted accused, were ignored while the admissions made by the convicted accused were relied upon to convict them, allegedly by “ignoring” or “chopping off” their clear links to Dileep.

The prosecution pointed out that, although Dileep admitted to having filed a complaint before the state police chief enclosing a copy of a letter written to him by Pulsar Suni from jail, the trial court misinterpreted and ignored the letter to acquit him. Consequently, Pulsar Suni and Sanilkumar were acquitted of charges under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 109 read with 506 (abetment of criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

Delivering the verdict in the eight-year-old case on December 8, Ernakulam District and Sessions Court Judge Honey Varghese had acquitted Malayalam actor Dileep of the conspiracy and sexual assault of a Malayalam actress. Six accused, including prime accused Pulsar Suni, were found guilty of gang rape and other offences and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution claims that crucial digital evidence (like the change in the memory card’s hash value) and key witness testimonies connecting Dileep to the conspiracy were either overlooked or unjustifiably dismissed by the court.

The legal advice also references an anonymous letter received by the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association before the verdict was pronounced, which alleged the judgment had been leaked in advance, further raising questions about the verdict’s integrity.

The memory card containing the visuals of the assault was accessed illegally thrice, including once in Judge Honey Varghese’s court. This had led to the survivor filing multiple petitions seeking a change of judge. The High Court denied these pleas.