News

Crime branch probes claims linking Dileep to Pulsar Suni, threats to investigators

KOCHI: On November 25, 2021, while the trial in the case was progressing, fresh trouble surfaced for the eighth accused, actor Dileep. Filmmaker P Balachandra Kumar levelled grave allegations, claiming that Dileep possessed a copy of the visuals of the assault captured by prime accused Pulsar Suni. He also alleged a close relationship between the two and accused Dileep of conspiring to endanger the lives of investigating officers. The revelations led the Crime Branch to register a fresh case against Dileep and others. In a petition submitted to the chief minister, Kumar said he visited Dileep at his Padmasarovaram residence in Aluva on December 26, 2016, to discuss a movie. On that day, he happened to travel with Suni, who was at the house along with Anoop, Dileeps brother, in a red Maruti Swift car. Anoop introduced Suni to him during the trip. From Anoops words, I understood that the young man had a lot of money with him and was taking it somewhere, Kumar stated. He also referred to a deliberation he had with Dileep on Suni, when the actor allegedly revealed certain details about the sexual assault. They met again on April 15, 2017, in Thiruvananthapuram as part of talks over the movie Professor Dinkan. When Kumar brought up Suni, Dileep reportedly responded saying that nothing happened, before going on to describe the abuse in detail, as though he had witnessed it firsthand. Dileep also instructed the director not to disclose the fact that Suni had visited his residence. In his plea, Balachandrakumar said that on September 12, Anoop, over a WhatsApp call, relayed the desire of Dileep, who was then in jail, to meet him. He met Dileep at Aluva sub jail the next day. Emerging from the meeting, he found Dileeps brother and brother-in-law waiting outside, and the latter handed him `50,000. According to Kumar, Anoop messaged him again, on October 6, to convey Dileeps intention to hold another meeting. The two met at a house in North Paravoor, and spent the entire day together. Dileep repeated the warning not to disclose that Suni had been to his house. The petitioner further stated that he visited Dileep on the morning of November 15 for discussions on a film. During their conversation, Dileeps friend Baiju arrived and the conversation veered toward the clips. Growing suspicious, Kumar recorded parts of the exchange, claiming that the recording pertained to offences in this case. He also recorded a phone conversation between Dileep and Anoop where they talked about how a witness had been influenced and that `5 lakh had been spent for this purpose. Dileep allegedly said that he could have easily coughed up `1.5 crore. Hearing this, his brother-in-law Suraj remarked that Suni could have collected the money from any place of his choice. Another friend of Dileep arrived and discussed the investigation and a plot to attack Suni and his gang on their release from jail. The filmmaker said that on the same day, a person who had come to meet Dileep entered the room with a tablet. Dileep, Suraj, Anoop, and another man named Appu watched a video, and Dileep invited Balachandrakumar to view it, saying it showed the cruel deeds of Pulsar Suni. In his petition to the CM, Kumar expressed the fear that Dileep or his associates may kill him, and that the actors manager had urged him not to reveal anything for his own safety. He produced a pen drive containing 24 voice clips to substantiate his allegations. Based on his revelations, the ADGP (crimes) of the crime branch headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram registered a case on January 9, 2022. The crime branch found that within days of Kumars disclosure, Dileep and others had discontinued using their mobile phones, concealed them and begun using new ones. Dileep deliberately withheld a phone he had used for 221 days, during which time he had made 2,075 calls, claiming it was not in his possession. Investigators identified 81 points from Kumars statements and collected evidence connecting them. Dileep and five others were booked under sections 116 (abetment), 118 (concealing design to commit offence), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC. Following the revelations, the survivor approached the High Court, submitting that further investigation was necessary to arrive at the truth. (to be concluded)