KOCHI: The state government on Friday submitted before the Kerala High Court that the victim in the actor abduction and sexual assault case was harassed during the trial by the advocates of the accused.
They added that the trial court did not take any action to restrain them.
Appearing for the state government, Senior State Public Prosecutor Suman Chakravarthy also submitted before the Court that a fair trial in the case will not be possible in the presence of Additional Special Sessions Judge.
The court also violated the norms of in-camera proceedings and around 20 lawyers were permitted inside the court during the examination of the victim, the public prosecutor said.
The victim's counsel said the victim was harassed to the extreme during the examination.
The senior state public prosecutor submitted that the victim was extensively cross-examined for nine days by the counsel for eighth accused actor Dileep wherein a lot of questions were raised challenging the credibility of the victim and even attacking her character. Though the prosecution had pointed out this and raised objection, the judge sat like a mute spectator.
The prosecution also sought to restrict the counsel from asking defamatory and unnecessary questions to a victim, but the court refused to interfere. The victim was constantly under pressure and humiliation in the trial court by the repeated questions in different ways even after giving proper answer.
During the trial, the court often commented that there was no importance to this case, forgetting the fact that this was a rarest of the rare case as the victim had watch the visuals of rape committed on her and identify it by her during the examination.
Though the prosecution filed a petition seeking to cancel the bail granted to Dileep, the trial court not yet taken a decision.
The government pointed out that the judge of the trial court was transferred to Kozhikode on April 15, 2020. However, the judge had made a personal request on June 8 before the Kerala High Court and the court allowed the judge to continue in her present situation until further orders. The High Court only constituted a special court to conduct the trial based on the request of the victim.
However, the judge requested personally to avoid the transfer. The government also produced the order.
The government pointed out that it is well-settled principle that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. The prosecution in its plea to stop the trial before the sessions court had mentioned that it was not a position to conduct the trial of the case as the act of court was biased which was detrimental to the interest of the judicial system as well as the victim. The prosecution was also
stated that a fair trial will not be possible in the present court.
The government submitted that 359 witnesses are to be examined from the prosecution side of which 80 witnesses are examined. Then the court asked why the transfer was sought now and did the prosecution bring it before the trial court judge?
The state government replied that it was promptly brought to the notice of the court, but went in vain. The prosecution is willing to produce the details of the incidents happened inside the trial court including the comments made by the judge in a sealed cover before the High Court, submitted the state government.