Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Judge Honey M Varghese was not qualified to pronounce the verdict in the Kerala actor assault case, the state’s directorate of prosecution has told the government. According to the prosecution, Judge Honey was party to the allegations regarding the illegal access of the memory card containing the visuals of the assault.
Section 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code prevents a judge or magistrate from trying a case where they are personally interested or a party. The prosecution argued that while Judge Honey is not a party in the actor assault case itself, her involvement, even if supervisory, in the allegations of memory card being accessed illegally disqualifies her from hearing the case. In fact, the judgement dedicated significant space to discussing the allegations raised against the court itself, without arriving at a logical conclusion regarding the illegal access.
Delivering the verdict in the eight-year-old case on December 8, Judge Honey had acquitted Malayalam actor Dileep of the conspiracy and sexual assault of a female colleague. Six accused, including prime accused Pulsar Suni, were found guilty of gang rape and other offences and sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment.
The observation about the judge was part of the legal advice given to the state government regarding further steps in the case, including appealing the trial court verdict in the High Court. The advice also included a note by advocate Aja Kumar, who served as the Special Public Prosecutor in the actor assault case.
The memory card containing the visuals of the assault were accessed illegally thrice, including once in Judge Honey’s court. This had led to the survivor filing multiple petitions seeking a change of judge. The High Court denied these pleas.
When the over 1,700-page judgement came out, one of the key points it discussed was the allegations regarding the illegal access of the memory card, the change in its hash value, and potential leakage of the assault visuals.
In over 80 pages, the judgement discussed the various forensic analyses conducted on the memory card ever since it reached the court’s custody in February 2017, a few days after the crime.
The judgement, quite simplistically, rationalises that the visuals were not compromised while in court custody. This it says by citing the forensic examinations that found that only the hash value of the memory card changed, but the individual hash values of the eight video clips containing the assault visuals remain unchanged to date.
It has consistently been the prosecution’s allegation that the court, and Judge Honey herself, knew about the illegal access of the memory card in January 2020 itself, more than two years before whistleblower Balachandrakumar's revelations and investigating officer Baiju Paulose filing for reopening of the investigation. The court however went into ‘tampering’ which was not an allegation put forward by the prosecution, instead of focusing on illegal access.
According to Dr Sunil SP, the expert who made the forensic image of the memory card, he had found a change in hash value on January 10, 2020, and had informed the Presiding Officer (Judge Honey) the same day via phone. Upon her instructions, he conducted a second examination on January 29, and the reports were both given to the court.
In the judgement in the actor assault case, Judge Honey implies that she received no such call, and even questions why the expert conducted a second exam on January 29 without a written direction from the court. Through this and other means, the judgement discredits the expert’s statements.
The judgement says that all of this should be considered along with the revelations made by Balachandrakumar. According to the judgement, the investigating officer seized the FSL reports in January 2022 and raised the allegation that a confidential document was found on Dileep’s phone with the aim of accusing the court of leaking the visuals.
This is consistent with actor Dileep’s defence, which said that Dileep was framed in the case as per the plans of the investigating officer, another senior police officer, and a politician.
The judgement’s section on the illegal access of the memory card concludes by ironically reiterating that the visuals were safe in court custody as the change in hash value was only for the memory card and not for the individual video clips. The judgement offered no explanation as to why the hash value of the card changed.