2017 actress assault case: Court cited lack of evidence to prove motive
KOCHI: Though the prosecution in the 2017 actor abduction and sexual abuse case cited the motive as Dileeps enmity and desire for revenge against the survivor for tattling on him to his first wife about his alleged illicit relationship with Kavya Madhavan, the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court found the claim unsubstantiated. The matter first came to light when Manju Warrier read messages sent by Kavya to Dileeps mobile phone. However, the court noted that these messages were not produced before it. Moreover, Manju, who claimed to have seen the messages, did not disclose their contents. Except for the assertion that the messages were of a private nature, there was nothing before the court to establish their contents, which were allegedly seen by Manju on February 12, 2012. The court further observed that although the survivor claimed that Dileep denied her opportunities in the Malayalam movie industry, no convincing evidence, apart from her oral testimony, was produced to substantiate the allegation. It noted that while Manju initially stated to the investigating officer that she had direct knowledge about the messages, she did not state that she had seen them on Dileeps mobile phone. In her second statement, she said that she had seen the messages exchanged between Kavya and Dileep on one occasion on Dileeps phone. However, while deposing before court, she stated that she saw the messages on February 12, 2012, on Dileeps old mobile phone. The prosecution alleged that Dileep and Kavya were maintaining an illicit relationship. The court noted that had this been the case, Kavya would have contacted Dileep upon receiving inquiries from Manju in the matter. The court reiterated that the messages allegedly seen by Manju on Dileeps mobile phone were never produced before it. During the examination, Kavya denied that Dileep frequently visited her during a show in the United States. The prosecution also alleged that during a bus journey in London in May-June 2012, Dileep confronted the survivor, questioning why she revealed his relationship with Kavya to Manju and her friends. According to the prosecution, they were in the vehicle as part of a team of performers on tour in Europe. However, the court found it highly improbable that such a confrontation could have occurred in the presence of other members of the team, without anyone else noticing it. The court further observed that even after the alleged incident, the survivor continued to perform with Dileep. There was also a special programme in which songs from films featuring both the survivor and Dileep were performed. In such circumstances, the court said, there ought to have been communication between them. The survivors submission that they abstained from conversation during the rehearsal camp was found to be unbelievable. The judge held that Dileep did not maintain a cordial relationship with the survivor. At the same time, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence regarding the alleged incidents in 2012 and the AMMA rehearsal camp at Kochi Hotel Abad Plaza in 2013, which were relied upon to bolster the argument that Dileep harboured hatred, ill-will, and an intention to destroy the survivors career. COURTS OBSERVATIONS The court held that the change in the hash value of the memory card did not, in any manner, affect its evidentiary value, as the visuals remained intact and the privacy of the survivor was never compromised It observed that despite extensive investigation into the mobile phone allegedly used to capture the visuals, further investigation was still stated to be ongoing. The records showed that the investigating officer had arrived at a clear finding that the mobile phone allegedly entrusted by Suni to advocate Pradeesh Chacko and handed over to advocate Raju Joseph was destroyed by him. If this is the situation, how can further investigation be conducted on such a phone? the court asked No witness examined by the prosecution proved the alleged incidents relating to the use of a mobile phone by Suni to contact Dileep while in jail. No investigation was conducted regarding the charger allegedly used to power the phone inside jail The court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the genuinity of the letter sent by Pulsar Suni from jail to Dileep
17 C
