KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the petition filed by the victim and the state government seeking to transfer the trial in the actor abduction and sexual assault case involving Malayalam actor Dileep to another court.
The victim alleged that she was aggrieved by the biased and hostile attitude of the Additional Special Sessions Court towards her. Soon after the pronouncement of the judgment, the State Public Prosecutor Suman Chakravarthy sought to stay the order so as to enable the state to approach the Supreme Court, but the court declined it. With this order, the trial in the case will resume on Monday.
The victim also submitted that during the cross-examination various questions were asked by defence counsel affecting her character and conduct. Those questions were objected to by the Prosecutor, but they were overruled by the trial judge who permitted such questions to continue. The government informed the court that a fair trial in the case will not be possible in the presence of the Additional Special Sessions Judge.
Dismissing the pleas, Justice VG Arun observed that the reasons cited by the petitioners seeking transfer of the trial were unsustainable. A mere allegation of apprehension of bias is not enough to accept the plea to transfer the case. The court has to see whether such apprehension is reasonable or not. The instances pointed out by the petitioners are not sufficient to conclude that the apprehension of bias is reasonable.
On the contention of delay in passing orders on the petitions filed by the prosecution, it was always open for the prosecution to have approached the High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction seeking expeditious disposal of the petitions. Further, it was not stated as to how the delay in passing the orders has prejudiced the prosecution in the conduct of the case. Needless to say, it would serve the interest of justice if orders are passed on the petitions without delay, which the special judge is bound to ensure.
The court held that there was no merit in the contention that it would be appropriate for the Special Judge to recuse from the case. Being a case transferred by the High Court and with the Supreme Court fixing a time limit for completing the process, the judge cannot be expected to be recused, as long as her conscience is clear. The endeavour of every judge should be to get rid of personal predilections and prejudices and to decide the case dispassionately and not recuse whenever his or her actions are questioned.
The court made it clear that it has time and again been stated that the duty of the prosecutor is not to seek conviction at all costs or be an avenging angel for the victim, but to ensure that justice is delivered. The Special Public Prosecutor in the case is understood to be a seasoned prosecutor, not easily flummoxed by the number of defence lawyers or the charged atmosphere in the court hall.
The court held that unless the court and the prosecutor work in sync, it will result in either the guilty escaping from the clutches of law or the innocent being punished. The court expressed hope that in the endeavour to reach the truth and render justice, the trial court, the special public prosecutor and the defence lawyers will work in tandem, as is expected of them.
The contention that counsel for the eighth accused Dileep was permitted to cross-examine the victims after four months of completion of cross-examination by the other accused is not of much avail, since the cross-examination was deferred awaiting CFSL report on the cloned copy of the pen drive furnished to the eighth accused as per the direction of the Supreme Court. Further, the trial had to be adjourned for almost three months in the light of the outbreak of the pandemic and the resultant lockdown.
The victim submitted there were attempts to harass and intimidate her during the cross-examination which had left her in tears most of the time. The victim alleged that the copy of the CFSL report was handed over to the counsel for Dileep on a day when there was no posting for the trial and without notice to the prosecution. She also alleged that the trial court sat like a mute spectator when she was examined and allegedly harassed by the counsel of eighth accused Dileep. The trial court has failed to record certain portions of the testimonies deposed by her deliberately and without any justification. Though the special prosecutor repeatedly requested to record the submissions, it has fallen on deaf ears. According to her, the trial court did not restrict the number of lawyers for the accused present in the court when she was examined and failed to uphold the spirit of the in-camera trial. Though the prosecution filed a petition seeking to cancel the bail of the accused Dileep for violating bail condition, no action has been taken.