Accused actor Dileep
Accused actor Dileep

‘I was weeping, judge didn’t ask others to leave’: Actor who was assaulted tells HC

The state government and the survivor actor continued to hit out at the alleged discriminatory approach of the trial court judge, during the hearing in the High Court on Monday.

The Kerala High Court has posted two petitions asking for the transfer of trial of the sensational Kerala actor assault case from the present trial court in Kochi, for pronouncing orders on November 21. The interim stay in the trial proceedings of the case will continue, the HC said on Monday. During the hearing, the state government and the survivor actor continued to hit out at the alleged discriminatory approach of the trial court judge. The state government counsel even told HC that the sole purpose of appointing a female judge to try the case, has failed.

The state government and the survivor had moved the Kerala High Court with pleas to transfer the trial of the case from Additional Sessions (CBI special No III) Court in Ernakulam, alleging a fair trial could not be secured from the court. It was on the insistence of the survivor that the Kerala HC had appointed a female judge to try the case. But recounting the trauma undergone by the survivor during the trial proceedings, her counsel told the HC that again there is no necessity that a woman judge itself should try the case.

The survivor had stated earlier that even when she was harassed by the counsel of actor Dileep, who is accused to have masterminded the crime, the judge did not interfere and sat as a mute spectator. The government has also questioned the principle of “in-camera” proceedings of the trial when the survivor was cross examined for days together in front of about 30 lawyers. Notably, out of this, 19 were Dileep’s lawyers.

“I was weeping. I was compelled to speak which no women dare to speak in public.The judge did not ask even the counsels to go out,” senior counsel Advocate S Sreekumar, told the HC on behalf of the survivor. Questions were even raised on the survivor’s conduct, her counsel added. The survivor and the others watched the video of her assault and she was later questioned about it.

As per law, it might be permissible for so many advocates to be present, but this is not justice, said Suman Chakravarthy, prosecution counsel for the government.The state government counsel also raised questions on why the trial court was stubborn that the case will continue to be tried in the same court despite the Public Prosecutor asking to stop trial proceedings.

“The judge was appointed by the HC to try the case. When the Public Prosecutor filed plea said there is no faith in the court, judge could have deferred it or could have written to HC, but she disposed the petition and strangely, many dormant petitions were taken up in the case,” said state government’s counsel.

Hearing the arguments of the survivor actor and the state government, Justice VG Arun, observed that the court and the prosecution should work in sync keeping their egos apart. Responding to this, state government counsel said that the Special Public Prosecutor A Suresan had tried his best to adjust with the conduct of the trial court and at last was forced to approach the HC.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute