2017 Kerala actor abduction case: Vagaries and vicissitudes of justice
KOCHI: The case, already fraught with twists, turns, and explosive revelations, deepened into one of Keralas most unsettling judicial sagas. The prosecution claimed this was the first time in the history of criminal law that a quotation had been issued for committing rape. In another major development, a memory card containing crucial visuals of the assault, kept in the trial courts safe custody, was found to have been accessed multiple times without authorisation, with forensic reports confirming changes in its hash value. Allegations also surfaced that the accused had established contact with the trial judge, raising serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. In the early phase of the probe, prime accused Pulsar Suni misled sleuths with a fabricated story about dumping the primary phone, a crucial piece of evidence, into the Kochi backwaters from Goshree bridge. Five Navy divers searched for hours on February 27, 2017, but found nothing. To this day, the original phone and memory card have not been recovered. As the investigation progressed, the police arraigned actor Dileep. Surprisingly, his second wife Kavya Madhavan moved an anticipatory bail application, claiming Dileep did not know Suni by name or face. The petition said that filmmaker Sreekumar Menon, who had long-standing enmity with Dileep, could have influenced the accusations. The petition was disposed of after the prosecution clarified that Kavya was not an accused. In a bombshell disclosure in 2022, it was revealed that the memory card had been tampered with while in the courts custody. The Forensic Science Lab found that the card had been used on a Vivo mobile phone with an Android operating system, with apps such as Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram installed. It was accessed on January 9, 2018, December 13, 2018, and again on July 19, 2021. The High Court noted that the first two accesses occurred at odd hours with no connection to court proceedings and issued guidelines for handling sexually explicit evidence in trial courts. A later probe by the trial court found that Leena Rasheed, the then Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (JFCM) judge, Angamaly; Mahesh Mohan, senior clerk of the Principal and Sessions Court (now an HC judge); and Thajudeen, then sheristadar of the trial court, Ernakulam, had accessed the card. Further action on the report remains pending. In the subsequent investigation, based on revelations by late filmmaker Balachandra Kumar, former police officer R Sreelekha made statements in favour of Dileep, claiming he was innocent and falsely implicated. She also alleged that the mobile phone used by Suni in jail was supplied by the police to fabricate evidence and contradicted several findings of the investigation. Sreelekha, who served as director general of prisons during Dileeps custody, was questioned by police in this regard. Another surprising turn was when the survivor petitioned the HC, blaming trial court judge Honey M Varghese of bias and harbouring a hostile attitude, and seeking a new judge. Interestingly, judge Honey was appointed after the survivor had requested for a woman judge to oversee proceedings. However, after allegations of bias arose, both the survivor and the state government filed multiple petitions to transfer the case to a different court. But it was rejected. (Concluded) Milestones & millstones Three-phased investigation The first phase began on February 18, 2017, led by Vishal Johnson, then CI, Aluva. The probe was later taken over by Babukumar, then DySP, Aluva, who filed the final report against seven accused before the JFMC, Angamaly on April 18, 2017. A report for further investigation was submitted on May 18, 2017, indicating a wider criminal conspiracy. On the same day, Baiju Poulose M was appointed investigating officer. He continues in that role. Prosecutors move aside Two prosecutors resigned, citing issues with the trial judge. Special public prosecutor A Suresan stepped down in December 2020 after raising objections to allegedly derogatory remarks made by the judge. He was replaced by V N Anilkumar on January 3, 2021, who put in his papers during the cross-examination of prosecution witness 202. Following this, additional public prosecutor Sunil Kumar K B completed the examination of several witnesses until February 7, 2022. V Ajayakumar was appointed special public prosecutor on February 18, 2022. Three turn approvers Vipinlal (the 10th accused) and P K Aneesh (the 14th accused and then civil police officer) were pardoned by the CJM, Ernakulam, after they turned approvers. On February 17, 2021, the court also accepted the plea of another accused, Vishnu, to turn approver. Vishnu had allegedly arranged a mobile phone and SIM for the first accused, Pulsar Suni, while he was lodged in the Kakkanad jail. Prolonged cross-examination The cross-examination of the investigating officer, Baiju (witness number 261), lasted eight months and seven days, making it one of the longest cross-examinations of a police officer in the states history. Dileeps counsel examined him for 95 days. The Supreme Court expressed concern over the extended process. 28 witnesses, including actors, turn hostile Several film actors turned hostile, including Bhama, Bindu Panicker, Siddique, Edavela Babu, and producer Renjith, despite their initial statements helping the prosecution establish Dileeps alleged enmity towards the survivor and outline the conspiracy.Bhama and Siddique had initially told police that Dileep openly threatened the survivor at a rehearsal venue in Kochis Hotel Abad Plaza, even making remarks about setting her on fire. Both also acknowledged Dileeps anger over the survivors role in exposing his relationship with Kavya. They later retracted these statements.Babu had earlier deposed that the survivor submitted a written complaint to industry body AMMA against Dileep, alleging he denied her opportunities in films. However, during examination, Babu stated he did not remember such a complaint. Witness examined online The late filmmaker, Balachandra Kumar, who made crucial revelations against Dileep, was examined for 49 days. During the process, he fell ill, and for 37 of those days, his examination was conducted online. Accused A1 Sunil N S aka Pulsar Suni A2 Martin Antony A3 Manikandan B A4 Vijeesh VP A5 Salim H aka Vadival Salim A6 Pradeep A7 Charly Thomas A8 P Gopalakrishnan aka Dileep A9 Sanilkumar aka Mesthiri Sanil A10 Sarath G Nair Two accused, advocates Pratheesh Chacko and Raju Joseph, were discharged during the course of the trial. Three persons initially implicated in the case later turned approvers Charges Accused 1 to 6 and 8th faced trial for charges under Sections 120A (when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done: an illegal act), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 357 (assault or use of criminal force on any person), 376D (gang rape), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 366 (kidnapping or abducting a woman), 506 (i) (criminal intimidation), and 109 r/w 34 (aiding or abetting a crime) of IPC and Section 66E and 67A of IT Act Eighth accused Dileep was additionally charged under Sections 201 (aiding or abetting a crime) and 204 (destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence) The seventh accused was charged under Section 212 (harbouring an offender) of IPC. The ninth accused was charged under Sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy and 109 (instigating or aiding a crime). The 10th accused faced trial for offence under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender)
14 C
