Actor abduction and sexual assault case: Conspiracy or not, many questions need answers
KOCHI: The trial court has acquitted actor Dileep in the actor abduction-assault case on the ground that the conspiracy charge against him could not be established. However, the fact that the conspiracy angle was not proved doesnt mean there was no conspiracy in the attack. The verdict, that convicted six persons and acquitted Dileep and three others, has left many questions unanswered. Hopefully, there will be more clarity when the court pronounces the sentence for those convicted and the details of the judgment are available in public domain. As of now, the question thats foremost on peoples minds is: if Dileep is indeed not guilty, who was behind the attack? And what about the justice for the survivor if all those involved arent made to face the consequences? Underlining the conspiracy angle, legal experts ask why a six-member criminal gang would target this particular actor and orchestrate a plot to assault her. The High Courts observations in the past on Pulsar Sunis financial capacity to repeatedly file bail pleas also suggest that someone may have been supporting him from behind the scenes. While rejecting Pulsar Sunis bail plea in June 2024, Justice P V Kunhikrishnan noted that the accused had filed ten different bail applications through multiple lawyers. The court observed: If the petitioner has financial difficulties, he can approach the Legal Services Authority to engage a lawyer. But he chose to engage his own lawyers, which is his right. However, from the petitioners conduct, filing bail application after bail application before the High Court and the Supreme Court, it is clear that either he is financially fit or there are some others behind the curtain helping him file these bail applications. Actor abduction and sexual assault case: Judgment comes after eight years, justice not yet Regarding the trial courts rejection of the prosecutions conspiracy charge, Advocate Raghul Sudheesh, a lawyer at the Kerala High Court, pointed out that any crime of this nature must involve a clear conspirator and motive. If it was for blackmailing, then the question arises: for whom was this act committed? he said. In the 2017 actor abduction and sexual assault case, the prosecution may have failed to present sufficient evidence to incriminate the eighth accused, Dileep. The final verdict, which is to be pronounced by the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, on December 12, may shed light on the doubts of common people regarding the acquittal, Raghul added. A High Court lawyer who wished to remain anonymous said several crucial questions still need answers, particularly why Pulsar Suni and the five others, who were found guilty by the trial court, would take such risks to target a specific actor. According to him, the survivor may have been singled out as part of someone elses plan. The offence committed by the six-member gang was a pre-planned act, carried out as part of a quotation given by somebody, the lawyer said. He also pointed out that the financial backgrounds of the convicted accused are extremely poor, suggesting that someone else was likely coordinating and funding the operation. He added that in criminal cases of this nature, the efforts taken by the police to establish conspiracy must be carefully evaluated.
22 C
