Malayalam actress abduction case: ‘Prima facie evidence of Dileep's’s involvement’

KOCHI: Dismissing the bail petition of actor Dileep, the Kerala High Court on Monday observed prima facie there are materials to suspect Dileep’s involvement in the crime.The investigation is progressing and it’s still in a crucial stage, the court said. It observed conspiracy is hatched in secret, and therefore, direct evidence is rarely available. The Director General of Prosecution (DGP) submitted there is a possibility of implicating other persons in the crime.

The High Court order said Dileep had married a leading actress and a child was born in the matrimonial relationship. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose in their family, ultimately leading to a judicial separation. Dileep suspected the victim, a close friend of his erstwhile wife, was instrumental in the disruption of his matrimonial life. He believed the victim had spoiled his family life by conveying information about him to the former wife.

The court stated there are enough materials available on record to show Dileep’s relationship with the victim was strained. There were versions of a few persons the victim lost a few opportunities to act in films thereafter, which affected her professional career. To wreak vengeance, Dileep allegedly conspired with Pulsar Suni to abduct the victim and take her nude photographs on an offer Suni would be paid `1.5 crore. 

The DGP contended the petitioner was the mastermind behind the crime. He had given quotation to Suni, a known criminal, to commit the nefarious crime. It was contended engaging criminals on a ‘quotation’ for sexually abusing a victim to wreak vengeance was unheard of. It was further contended there were cogent, clinging, circumstantial and scientific evidence to establish Dileep had conspired with Suni. 

The DGP said the investigation has gathered sufficient materials to establish the petitioner’s role in the conspiracy. They fall into two categories: Those materials prior to the actual commission of the offence and the conduct of the accused subsequent to the commission of the offence. The complaint filed by Dileep with the Director General of Police in April was a clever move to preempt a possible revelation of his involvement in the crime, by the first accused, the police stated.

The presence of both Dileep and Suni at all the five places at the same time was established by call record details, tower location of mobile phones or by direct oral evidence gathered during the investigation, the court noted.