2017 Kerala actor abduction case: How conspiracy narrative fell apart
KOCHI: Though the prosecution put forward several conspiracy theories to implicate actor Dileep, the trial court rejected them. However, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the second conspiracy, between Pulsar Suni and five other accused, to abduct and rape the survivor. The prosecutions first theory was that Pulsar Suni and Dileep conspired during a meeting at hotel Abad Plaza. As per the charges, the duo entered into a criminal conspiracy to videograph nude visuals and sexual acts of the survivor to defame and harass her. Dileep allegedly called Suni to room 410 of Abad Plaza on MG Road, Ernakulam, on a day between March 28 and April 2, 2013. There, Suni agreed to the plan, and Dileep allegedly promised him Rs 1.5 crore, the prosecution said. Advocate Sujesh Menon, Dileeps counsel, said the allegation lacked valid proof. The prosecution relied on tower location data showing that Dileep and Suni were in the same place at similar times. Menon countered that Dileep was at those places or film shoots or rehearsals, while Suni, being a driver on film sets, too might have been present. There was no evidence proving they met or discussed any plan, he argued. The prosecution maintained that several circumstances pointed to an illegal quotation agreement between the two, like Suni initially concealing Dileeps role, and, during the assault, misleading the survivor by claiming a woman had issued the quotation. During interrogation, and in a letter to Dileep, Suni reportedly admitted to receiving instructions from him. The court held the evidence did not conclusively link Dileep. 2017 Kerala actor abduction case: We had complete freedom, support from seniors throughout, says probe officer The prosecutions third theory centred on an alleged meeting between Dileep and Suni at Padmasarovaram on December 26, 2016. Police pursued this angle following revelations by filmmaker Balachandra Kumar. Kumar alleged he saw Dileep interacting closely with Suni. The significance of this meeting, they argued, was heightened by the fact that the first failed attempt to attack the survivor took place in Goa just days later. The prosecution claimed that oral evidence from Kumar, Nadirsha, Jinson, and Vishnu (Sunis cousin), along with forensic analysis and digital and documentary records, corroborated the meeting. However, the defence countered that the audio clips submitted by Kumar had no evidentiary value, as he had not produced the original phone used to record them.
22 C
