Kerala actor assault case: Prosecution fails to prove purpose of Sunis visit to Kavyas store
KOCHI: The prosecution failed to prove to the trial court the purpose of Pulsar Sunis visit to Laksyah, a clothing business run by Kavya Madhavan. At one stage, the prosecution asserted that Suni intended to collect quotation money for the abduction and sexual abuse of the actor on February 17, 2017. It also claimed that first accused Suni and fourth accused Vijeesh V P visited Laksyah to hand over a letter. Simultaneously, the prosecution took the stand that the visit was to deliver a memory card containing visuals of the sexual assault and to hand over the mobile phone used to record the act, the court judgment showed. The court noted the defences argument that Dileep was in no way connected with the management or functioning of Laksyah. The business establishments in which Dileep had ownership were located in Edappally and Chalakudy. Had Suni and Vijeesh intended to meet Dileep, they would have approached these establishments or his residence, the judge said. It observed that evidence was not reliable enough to conclude that either Suni alone or Suni along with Vijeesh reached Laksyah on February 22, following the incident. 2017 actress assault case: Court cited lack of evidence to prove motive The prosecution argued that Sunis attempts to make contact prior to his arrest revealed the existence of a criminal conspiracy. A witness, who was an employee at Laksyah, initially deposed that nothing unusual had occurred at the shop. Subsequently, the police recorded his statement again, after which he deposed in tune with the prosecution case. The court observed that the reason put forward by the prosecution for re-examining the witness after the revelations made by filmmaker Balachandra Kumar appeared doubtful. The witness stated that he deposed in favour of the prosecution due to pressure exerted on him. The court noted that the prosecution had no case in claiming that Suni copied the visuals to other devices, including a memory card. Had this been the case, the alleged entrustment of a memory card at Laksyah would also appear doubtful. The case of the prosecution was that the visuals were copied only to a pen drive, which was seized by the police. Therefore, there was no possibility of handing over a memory card containing the visuals at Laksyah. It concluded that the purpose of the visit to Laksyah appeared to vary, based on claims of several witnesses.
17 C
