KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, to provide certified copies of statements from individuals examined in the inquiry regarding the unauthorized access of a memory card containing videos of a sexual assault to the survivor. The survivor had previously been denied access to these statements by the Sessions Judge.
The survivor filed two applications with the Court: one to obtain copies of the statements from the fact-finding inquiry and another to challenge the inquiry report submitted by the Ernakulam Sessions and District Judge on January 8, 2024.
During the hearing, Justice K Babu clarified that the intention was never to keep the fact-finding inquiry report confidential. The survivor requested the statements of individuals examined during the inquiry to verify the accuracy of the inquiry report. As a result, the Sessions Judge is now required to promptly provide copies of these statements to the survivor.
When the second plea of the survivor to quash the inquiry report came up for consideration, the court asked "Is it possible to reopen the writ petition instead of initiating a fresh cause of action?"
The counsel for the survivor argued that the court ordered an inquiry and if the inquiry doesn't comply with the directives of the court, they must bring the attention of the court. "Now it has been established that what I have alleged is true. But the inquiry officer doesn't comply with the direction of the court," said the counsel.
The inquiry revealed that three persons, a former Angamaly court magistrate, and two court employees accessed the memory card containing the visuals of the 2017 assault and rape of an actor.
In an affidavit filed before the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the inquiry report and order a probe by a police special investigation team under the supervision of the court into the incident, the survivor, citing the inquiry report, alleged that Leena Rasheed, the then JFCM, Angamaly, Mahesh Mohan, Senior Clerk of the then Principal and Sessions Judge, who is now a judge of the Kerala High Court, and Thajudeen, then Shirstadar of the trial court, Ernakulam, had accessed it.
Dileep, eighth accused, opposes plea , and actor's counsel said that once the judgment was delivered, this court could not entertain a challenge that was subsequently made by the survivor. If they want to challenge it, they have to resort to separate proceedings. The interim application in a disposed-of matter cannot be entertained.
"The filing of this application is improper and it is only a forum-hunting exercise," alleged the counsel.
The counsel for Dileep vehemently opposed the publication of the details of the reports into the media and said this was an abuse of process. The Single Judge refused to accept it and said "I will not look into those issues."
