KOCHI: More than two years since the most crucial digital evidence in the 2017 actor abduction and sexual assault case was found to have been illegally accessed while in court custody, no action has been initiated against those responsible. Instead, the inquiry into the breach has thrown up a series of unanswered questions.
According to the prosecution, a key unresolved issue is why the then magistrate of the Angamaly judicial first class magistrate court took the memory card containing the sexual-abuse visuals to her residence and why the inquiry report remains silent on whether other persons were present when the card was accessed.
Serious doubts have also been raised regarding access by staff of the then Ernakulam district and sessions judge, allegedly on the judge’s instruction, without the report explaining the specific purpose for such an examination. The inquiry report, a copy of which is in the possession of TNIE, was submitted on January 8, 2024, by District and Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese before the registrar (district judiciary), Kerala High Court.
The report concludes that since the visuals were not found to have been copied, “no offences are seen committed as of now”, even while stating that those involved are liable to be proceeded against for misconduct. The inquiry report was submitted based on a HC directive to probe into memory card access.
The first access, on January 9, 2018, was attributed to Leena Rasheed, magistrate of the Angamaly judicial first class magistrate court. The report notes that the memory card was in her exclusive custody until it was forwarded to the Sessions Court on March 5, 2018, and that no one could access the records without the magistrate’s permission.
Leena stated that she had taken the memory card along with other case documents to her residence for verification and consideration of petitions and that she connected the card to her laptop using a card reader. The prosecution questions why the memory card was taken to the magistrate’s residence and whether any other persons were present during the access. The inquiry report, however, does not address these concerns.
The second access, on December 13, 2018, was by Mahesh Mohan, then property clerk of the Ernakulam district sessions judge, who claimed that it was carried out on the direction of the then presiding officer. The report states that whether the access was performed on the judge’s direction remains to be verified. Since the presiding officer had by then been elevated as a judge of the HC, his statement was not recorded.
The third access, on July 19, 2021, was found to be illegal. The report states that Thajudheen K A, then sheristadar of the trial court, accessed the memory card using his personal Vivo mobile phone without any authority. At the time, he was using BSNL and Jio connections and had several applications, including Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Telegram, installed on the device.
Thajudheen claimed that he never inspected the memory card and stated that his mobile phone was lost during a train journey from Ernakulam to Thrissur in February 2022. However, he also stated that after hearing media reports that the memory card had been accessed using a Vivo phone, he inspected his mobile phone and found nothing suspicious. The prosecution has raised doubts over how he could inspect a phone that was allegedly lost during the journey.
While the inquiry report acknowledges that Thajudheen’s access was unauthorised and illegal, it states that there is no evidence to show continuous access or copying of the visuals during that period.
Deposition of then magistrate
Leena Rasheed said she was on maternity leave when the memory card was produced before the court on February 20, 2017, and that she joined duty before the filing of the final report on April 17, 2017. She allowed the counsels of actor Dileep to examine the contents of the card. On that day, she played the visuals on her laptop. Dileep stood at a distance while his counsels inspected the visuals.
Later, permission was granted for Dileep to inspect the visuals along with his counsels. The inspection reportedly lasted nearly two hours, during which the visuals were examined file by file. She stated that she later took the documents, including the memory card, to her residence for verification and consideration of petitions.
The pen drive was kept in the custody of the junior superintendent in the court chest. She collected it on several occasions for verification and returned it thereafter. She said she could not recollect the exact dates when she examined the memory card using her laptop and stated that she had no knowledge that the hash value would change if the card was connected to her laptop. She categorically stated that the records, including the memory card, were in her exclusive possession and that nobody else accessed them.
Deposition of Mahesh Mohan
Mahesh stated that the memory card and other materials were produced before the district and sessions court on March 5, 2018. He said the judge appeared anxious about retaining custody of the card. The judge placed the memory card in an envelope along with the pen drive and kept it in his bag. The judge told Mahesh that while his son usually assisted him on technical matters, he could not seek his assistance in this case.
Mahesh informed the judge that the card could be verified using a mobile phone and demonstrated the method using his phone. The judge then directed him to take the card to his residence and verify it, cautioning him to maintain confidentiality.
Mahesh stated that he accessed the card around 10.58pm on a December day in 2018 using his mobile phone but could not recollect the exact date. He returned the card to the judge the next day. He claimed that he never copied or transmitted the visuals and that he later destroyed the mobile phone used to verify the contents.