TNM has followed this case from the start. For verified and timely updates and legal explanations, join our WhatsApp Channel.
After his acquittal in the actor assault case, Malayalam actor Dileep went straight to meet the man he said he “owes his life” to: senior advocate B Raman Pillai. Arriving at his home, the actor walked to where the lawyer sat smiling, kissed him on his cheek, hugged him, and touched his feet.
It was on December 8 that the Additional Special Sessions Court in Ernakulam pronounced the verdict in the case. Dileep had been accused of commissioning the abduction and sexual assault of a female colleague, but Judge Honey Varghese cleared him of all charges. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) had spent years building its case, two prosecutors had resigned citing what they described as the court’s bias towards the accused, and in the final days of the trial a whistleblower appeared in court claiming that Dileep was the mastermind behind the crime.
As Dileep’s acquittal triggers fresh debates on the strength of the evidence, the court’s reasoning, and the prosecution’s failures, this lawyer deserves close attention. Senior advocate B Raman Pillai, a lawyer in his seventies, led Dileep’s defence and, despite persistent allegations of witness intimidation, survivor shaming, and other aggressive tactics, ensured that his client walked away unscathed.
When TNM first met Raman Pillai at his office in Ernakulam’s Kacheripady, he was just returning from court. A junior carefully assisted him from his car, and he walked slowly into the building, evidently troubled by his health and age, a pack of cigarettes clutched in his right hand. He smiled and politely told us that he didn’t think there was much to profile in his life. He still agreed to an interview and gave us an appointment for a week later. Only, the next week he asked for it to be pushed to the next week, and then the next and the next, for almost a month.
At the next meeting, he told us that he is averse to publicity. “I am dogged by such requests all the time. There are many journalists after me, but I don’t encourage anyone,” he said. But never did he utter a definitive “no”. It was always, “I am busy at the moment, come later.”
When we finally sat down for an interview, Pillai said, “Let me get to know you first.” He opened a fresh page in his diary to jot down our name and number, and even cracked a light-hearted joke.
Looks can be deceptive, especially in a court of law. This seemingly jovial man may not fit everyone’s mental image of the undefeated criminal lawyer, but he has quite successfully cultivated that aura about himself.
Those who have witnessed him in court offer diverse accounts. One day, he might exude the calm of a monk, whereas another day he would tear into those he was cross-examining. Witnesses have often raised the point of being intimidated by him in court. Yet the consensus is straightforward: Pillai does what he needs to as a criminal lawyer to win a case.
Despite having the tag of a ‘lawyer for the criminals’, he is admired and looked up to for his professional skills, especially his sharp memory, in the legal fraternity.
The media often portrays him as a legal giant whose involvement in a case guarantees the victory of his clients.
But is that true? Is success really a guarantee? How much is mere urban lore? Who is B Raman Pillai really?
This is a look at the lawyer’s long, controversial career. A man who has defended the accused in some of Kerala’s most sensational and divisive cases: the Sister Abhaya murder, the TP Chandrasekharan murder, the Nisham Hummer killing, and the Bishop Franco rape case.
Raman Pillai has always stayed on the defence’s side for the entirety of his career, with just one exception—the Puthoor Sheela murder case of 2010, in which he appeared as the special public prosecutor. The deceased Sheela was the sister of a top bureaucrat in the state. The case had also earned notoriety after the first accused, 26-year-old Sampath, was brutally tortured and murdered in police custody.
“I generally do not prefer being the prosecutor. It’s a lot of hassle, and the pay is less as well. I took up the Sheela case as there was a lot of pressure from top, including from the IAS lobby,” Pillai recalled.
During his long career, he has appeared in many cases important to the CPI(M), the government in power since 2016 in Kerala.
Among ongoing ones is the murder of Ariyil Shukkoor, a Muslim Students Federation (MSF) leader in Kannur, allegedly killed by CPI(M) leaders. Pillai is appearing for 15 accused persons affiliated with the CPI(M) in the case, in which trial is currently in progress.
But when asked if he is a CPI(M) sympathiser, he denied it. In fact, he said that he was from a “Congress family”.
“I have contested students’ union elections in college as part of KSU,” he told us with a chuckle. The Kerala Students’ Union (KSU) is the students’ wing of the Congress party.
“The TP Chandrasekharan case isn’t the only case I handled for the CPI(M); I have taken up many other cases, for all parties,” he said.
The TP Chandrasekharan murder case of 2012 remains the most notable among the political cases that he has taken up. Chandrasekharan was a former CPI(M) member who had left the party to establish the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP). In this case, Pillai appeared for CPI(M) leaders and members who were accused of conspiracy and murder.
His diverse clientele suggests Pillai operates without particular political affiliation in case selection. In fact, he has, at times, simultaneously represented and opposed both the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the CPI(M).
For instance, he was the senior counsel for 10 Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) activists accused in the murder of RSS worker Vinod in Alappuzha in December 2007. Five of the accused in Vinod’s murder were acquitted by the trial court, while five others got life imprisonment.
Simultaneously, Pillai appealed the High Court for 13 RSS workers sentenced to life imprisonment in the murder of VV Vishnu, a CPI(M) worker in Thiruvananthapuram, in 2008. In 2022, the HC reversed the lower court judgement and acquitted all 13.
The actor assault case was not the first high profile case that Pillai took up, nor is Dileep his only celebrity client. Roughly a year after this case began, Pillai was hired by Franco Mulakkal, the former Catholic bishop accused of repeatedly raping a nun. Franco was acquitted by the trial court in January 2022.
Pillai was also the lawyer for Mohammad Nisham, a wealthy businessman who was convicted of murdering K Chandrabose, a security guard in Thrissur.
Some of Pillai’s other clients include Robin Mathew Vadakkamchery, another Catholic priest who raped and impregnated a minor; Fr Thomas Kottoor, first accused in the 1992 Sister Abhaya murder case; businessman Boby Chemmannur, who made sexually coloured remarks about actor Honey Rose; IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman charged with the homicide of journalist KM Basheer; actor Siddique accused of raping a woman artiste; and actor Shine Tom Chacko in a drug use case.
His penchant for taking up celebrity cases has earned Pillai admiration and scorn.
Former legislator and lawyer Sebastian Paul said, “As soon as a high-profile crime is reported, one can guess that Raman Pillai would be roped in as defence lawyer.”
A retired High Court judge TNM spoke to ascribed Pillai’s popularity to his sensational cases. “There are many good lawyers in Kerala other than Raman Pillai; he is celebrated only because of the sensational nature of the cases he handles,” the judge said.
Sandhya Raju, who was part of the nuns’ legal team in the Franco case, said Pillai's rise to the top of criminal law practice in Kerala has little to do with his charisma. “He established himself as the topmost with his sound grasp of the law and his ability to manage the court.”
She also noted, “Most of the time, almost everyone in court, including the judges and his fellow lawyers, would be several years his junior. This creates an air of awe around him, which also contributes to his success in some ways.”
A former client of the lawyer also affirmed that Pillai’s seniority and age give him an edge in court.
His seniority has even earned Pillai certain considerations by the court. In two instances, both in late 2024, the hearings of his cases were postponed citing his inability to climb the stairs to the first floor of the Special Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ernakulam.
The legal profession wasn’t always his goal, Raman Pillai recollected, when asked about his student days. Nor did he have any lawyers in the family he wished to take after. Born and raised in Chettikulangara in Alappuzha district, his “mother was a retired DEO [District Educational Officer], and father was from a feudal family”.
He chose science for his pre-degree course with the aim of pursuing medicine. He completed his undergraduate degree from NSS College, Pandalam, during which time he lost interest in the medicine dream.
At a time when he said he had no special interests, his brother-in-law Purushothaman Pillai, a now-retired police officer, suggested that he study law at the Government Law College in Ernakulam.
Pillai joined the legal profession in 1972 as a junior in the office of advocate MN Sukumaran Nair, an Alappuzha-based criminal lawyer who later shifted his practice to Ernakulam, where the High Court is located. Yet again, it was Purushothaman Pillai who had suggested that Raman Pillai join Sukumaran Nair’s office.
“On completion of my LLB course, it was my brother-in-law who instructed me to join the office of MN Sukumaran Nair sir. My father’s cousin, who was a prosecuting inspector and later a magistrate, too was very instrumental in my joining MN Sukumaran Nair sir’s office in 1972,” Pillai recollected.
Ironically, the criminal lawyer started his career with a civil case. “It was related to a trade union conflict at the Cochin Port Trust and worker layoffs,” he said.
His second client, which was his first criminal case, was a naval officer. “The case was regarding a physical altercation and was heard at the Mattancherry court.”
Ever since, Pillai has only handled criminal cases. But that is not owing to any special preferences, he said. “It’s just that I kept getting criminal cases after that, as I had several contacts in Ernakulam, including within the press. I had also cultivated several contacts during college.”
Pillai was a part of the counsel for PK Narayanan in the highly controversial Polakulam murder case in the 1980s. Peethambaran, a 26-year-old receptionist at Polakulam Residency, a hotel in Ernakulam, was found dead outside the building in April 1983. Narayanan, the owner of the hotel, was accused of hiring a killer to murder Peethambaran. He was acquitted by the Supreme Court.
Pillai’s reputation as a criminal lawyer grew with time, so much so that he was compared to the yesteryear criminal lawyer Malloor Govinda Pillai. Malloor, inarguably Kerala’s most prolific criminal lawyer in the 20th century, was known by an adage at the heights of his career: “If you have a thousand rupees and Malloor, you can get away with murder.” This was based on Malloor’s uncanny knack to win even the most hopeless of cases with his sharp skills in the court.
During a rare video interview given to the media a couple of years ago, Pillai was asked about this comparison, and more specifically about what he thinks of being termed the ‘New Malloor’ and whether the same old adage applied to him as well. “That’s just nonsense,” Pillai laughed it off.
Raman Pillai’s contemporaries do not believe him to be an undefeatable lawyer. In fact, he has lost more cases than he has won, they said. Sebastian Paul likened it to film director IV Sasi’s legacy. “We know [IV Sasi] by his successful films and never remember the flops. Similarly, after a point, the public only remembers the lawyer’s victories,” he said. IV Sasi was an acclaimed Malayalam filmmaker known for his works like Itha Ivide Vare, Avalude Raavukal, and Aalkootthathil Thaniye, among others.
“There are no audits happening for us to know how many cases are won or lost. There may be many big hits, but there are as many big flops too,” Sebastian added.
Advocate CP Udayabhanu, who has worked on several prominent criminal cases, spoke about his experience working with Raman Pillai. “My acquaintance with Pillai sir dates back to about 40-45 years. We have known each other since the time he was a junior at the office of MN Sukumaran Nair sir, one of Kerala’s most prominent lawyers, and I was a junior at the office of TV Prabhakaran sir. It was after we became capable of standing on our own two feet that the two of us started collaborating on cases or appearing for opposite sides in criminal cases.”
Raman Pillai and Udayabhanu worked together on the Sister Abhaya murder case, as counsels for Fr Thomas Kottoor (accused no. 1) and Fr Jose Poothrikkayil (accused no. 2, later discharged) respectively. He also recalled that both priests had independently contacted Pillai and him a year before they were indicted.
"Later, for matters related to the case during trial, bail pleas, and other petitions, Pillai sir gave me preference in leading the arguments in court. Most of the time, he would acknowledge that my arguments were sufficient for the case, and this gave me special happiness,” Udayabhanu recollected.
In fact, Udayabhanu asserted that in the cases that he has appeared against Pillai, he has won more cases. For 15 years from 2000, Udayabhanu served as the legal counsel and special public prosecutor for the Narcotics Control Bureau and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. In this period, he said Pillai appeared as defense in almost 20 of those cases.
"Except for one case in which he secured total victory, I was able to win almost all the other cases,” he said.
Even among his major cases, Pillai has lost quite a few. Businessman Nisham, who rammed his Hummer car into a security guard who was late to open the gate, was convicted. This, after an eyewitness turned hostile and then came back to court to change his statement.
In the TP Chandrasekharan case, Pillai could not manage to get the main accused acquitted. However, the alibi he presented in court for a CPI(M) area committee member helped four CPI(M) leaders walk away free. Two of the acquittals – KK Krishnan and Geothi Babu – were quashed by the Kerala High Court in 2024.
In the decades-long Sister Abhaya murder case, where Pillai represented Fr Thomas Kottoor, the trial of the case saw nine prosecution witnesses turning hostile. The priest was convicted by a Special CBI court in 2020. His life sentence was suspended by the High Court in 2022.
Another Catholic priest Pillai appeared for was Father Robin, who raped and impregnated a minor girl. The senior lawyer took up the case in the appeals stage in the High Court. At this stage, Robin even filed a shocking petition requesting a two-month suspension of his sentence in order to ‘marry the survivor’. The High Court did not allow the request. While Pillai managed to reduce Robin’s sentence from 20 to 10 years, he did not get the defrocked priest acquitted.
Ironically enough, it is the clients who end up in jail who tend to stay in touch with him, Pillai said. “Once acquitted in a case, people generally don’t wish to maintain contact with us. It is psychological—they develop a certain complex, thinking, this is the lawyer who saved our lives. That is not the case with those convicted and sent to prison. They feel the need to stay in touch with their lawyer,” he elaborated.
Pillai may have faced several failures, but Udayabhanu does not discount the knowledge and experience that he has gained through his many years in the profession. “He has over 50 years of trial and appeal background; and has also probably appeared on one or the other side in most of the criminal cases that were tried in Kerala in this period. That is not a small feat, no doubt about that,” he said.
Sebastian Paul added, “I would not consider Pillai to be a legal expert, but he is very pragmatic. Winning criminal cases requires more than just legal expertise; it demands both fair and unfair tactics. He is adept at both.”
Pillai himself admitted in an earlier video interview that some of the losses in his career were quite unexpected, like in the Polakulam case or the Sister Abhaya case. In both instances, he had represented the murder-accused.
In virtually every case he has argued, certain distinct Raman Pillai tactics surface: witnesses turning hostile, extensive cross-questioning, and victim shaming.
“I like those cases where the prosecution puts up a fight. I like the ‘fight’,” Pillai told us while discussing the type of cases he prefers.
He, however, refused to name any one case as his favourite. “I don’t have easy cases, all the cases I take up are challenging, and so I can’t pick a favourite,” he said.
But when asked what part of the job he likes the most, he didn’t have to think twice. “Cross examination,” he declared. “There is some fun to it.”
In Sandhya Raju’s observation, “He will persist in asking questions till they say what he wants to hear; in a way, he makes use of the witness’ psychological vulnerability.”
She cited the example of the trial in the Bishop Franco case: “He began the cross examination of the survivor nun in a very polite manner. But after a point, he lost his cool and spoke rudely to her. He attempted to devalue the survivor and what she has suffered. He would often refer to past events, in an attempt to distract the witness or just fish for something that would work in his favour.”
In an earlier, detailed article on the Franco case, TNM had spoken to the survivor nun about her experience in court. She had said, “There were some questions that entirely broke me,” recalling how Pillai would sometimes repeat the same questions until she cried out in distress.
The questions were such that at times the judge was forced to intervene. “[The judge] would tell Raman Pillai that there’s a limit to how you can ask [a question],” the survivor had said.
Pillai is also known for arriving in court with a posse of junior lawyers. “The battery of male lawyers with whom he arrives in court helps him launch a simultaneous psychological assault on the opponent and/or survivor,” Sandhya said. “When the court is in session, each junior takes notes. Each of them would even have the entire chargesheet with them.”
That is not always the case, Udayabhanu observed. “I have seen him arrive in court with just one book and one sheet of paper and argue his case.”
Advocate S Rajeev, another criminal lawyer who has worked with and against Pillai in several cases, said, “His style of cross examination is best described as intelligent; it is not confrontational or insulting. He is known for lengthy cross examinations. He makes witnesses confused; in fact, he may be more thorough with the facts than the witnesses themselves. Even a lawyer who wins a case against Raman Pillai would feel wonderstruck by his performance in court.”
Witnesses who have been cross examined by Pillai would beg to differ. He was accused of shaming and intimidating the survivor in the actor assault case as well. The survivor and the judge were the only two women in a courtroom full of men, several of them part of Pillai’s team.
In 2020, petitioning the Kerala High Court for a transfer of the case trial to a different judge, the survivor’s counsel had submitted on her behalf: “I was weeping. I was compelled to speak [about things] that no woman would dare to do in public. The judge did not even ask the counsels to go out.”
Her petition recounted how she suffered a “second trauma” during cross examination because the judge was a “mute spectator” and even appeared to have “joined the ‘fun’” when defence counsel subjected her to “ridicule, taunts, sarcasm, jeers, and laughter”.
When the allegation of victim shaming was raised, Pillai told us, “It is only natural that they feel uncomfortable or disturbed during the cross examinations. The process requires us to ask detailed questions. I only ask questions that are relevant and permissible. Yet, some of it may cause discomfort to the witnesses. I still have to do it as it is part of the job.”
The many restrictions imposed on cross examining the survivor and witnesses is why Pillai avoids cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. “I refuse to take up the trial of POCSO cases,” he said. The only exception was when he appeared for Fr Robin’s appeal in the High Court.
The notoriety of Pillai’s cross examinations are not limited to the nature of the questions he poses, but also to the inordinate length of the process.
In the actor assault case, the cross examination of the investigating officer Baiju Paulose alone spilled over to close to 80 days. The lengthy cross examination in the case had even invited the ire of the Supreme Court.
It had even given rise to allegations that Judge Honey Varghese, who is hearing the actor assault case, was showing undue favour to Pillai. The lawyer refuted this as well: “I usually conduct lengthy cross examinations in every court. No judge has expressly told me to cut it short till date.” He added, “Besides meeting in court, I have no personal relationship with any judicial officer.”
While some merely see the long-drawn-out crosses as his signature style, many told TNM that it was an archaic practice that doesn’t necessarily contribute to the result of a case.
Pillai told us that lengthy cross examinations are crucial to getting important information from the witnesses. “Only if you ask a number of questions will you finally get the witness to say what you want them to say,” he said. “You have to know what you intend on stating at the end of the cross. Only then can you plan your questions and approach from the beginning,” he said.
“We may not always get the answer we were hoping for. Then we will have to work out how to use the witness’ answer to our advantage,” he elaborated, adding, “It’s not like the old times anymore, the prosecution coaches witnesses extremely thoroughly. Sometimes, it might be on the third day of cross examining a witness that they admit an important detail.”
In the Chandrabose murder case, the victim’s widow Jamanthi had been present at the court every day during the trial, even though she wasn’t listed as a witness in the case. Udayabhanu, who was the special public prosecutor in the case, said, “It was a long trial that extended for about 90 days.”
“He did not rush through his arguments in the court,” Jamanthi remembered. “When the case reached the High Court, it was slated to be completed in four days. Instead it took 11 days for the trial to be over because he took a lot of time presenting the case.”
But that is not quite the desired approach, in Sebastian Paul’s opinion. “Cross examination is an art, and its number one principle is to know where to stop. Once you get a favourable answer, stop right there,” he said, adding, “What many lawyers do is to extend the cross in order to give the client the impression that they have worked enough to deserve the fees they are charging.”
During the cross examinations, Raman Pillai watches out for discrepancies in the statements of the police or the witnesses, Sandhya said. “He does this with the help of detailed research; he is sharp that way. He will then use the discrepancy to his advantage,” she added.
But it doesn’t come without time and effort, Raman Pillai told us. “To know how to use a certain witness’ answer for our client’s good, we need to study the facts of the case thoroughly.”
The research and long hours of study are supplemented by his memory, said S Rajeev. “He handles multiple cases at the same time, but never gets his facts confused. At one point, he handled both the actor assault case and TP murder case simultaneously. Still, I have never seen him confused.”
For a criminal lawyer, ‘strategy’ starts from the moment they file for bail—that is when they decide what story they are going to build to help their client. Sandhya Raju said Pillai’s preparation is comprehensive. “He even fishes out old interviews that he can use against his opponents in court.”
In the Franco case, a 2018 media interview given by Sister Anupama, who was prosecution witness 4 in the case, was used by Pillai’s team to discredit the entire case. TNM had reported in detail about this in 2022. The defence produced the interview by Reporter TV journalist Abhilash Mohanan in court, placing emphasis on one phrase that Sister Anupama said: “We got to know details [of the sexual assault] after the police complaint was filed.”
The defence argued that this contradicts the survivor and Anupama’s previous statements that the survivor had told them about the assault before itself.
However, advocate John Ralph, who assisted the prosecutor, had told TNM in 2022, “All that Sister Anupama meant is that she learned the intricate details of the crime after the police complaint.” This detail ultimately proved crucial in the court acquitting Franco in the case.
“It was a tough case, everyone had expected Franco to be convicted,” Pillai reminisced.
Similarly, during the cross examination of the investigating officer Baiju Paulose in the actor assault case, Pillai brought up an unrelated television interview to discredit the officer.
Throughout the cross examination, the defence’s argument was that actor Dileep was framed in the case under the instructions of a politician and a top cop.
In order to prove this, the defence cited an interview Baiju Paulose gave to Goodness TV in 2019, in which he had recounted a 2015 drug case involving a politician’s son.
When asked about this by Pillai, the officer said in court that the anecdote was not a true one and that he had combined his experiences in investigating a few cases for dramatic effect in the interview.
However, Pillai persisted, asking Baiju, “Wasn’t the politician returning you a favour by giving the statement for the survivor in this case?” The lawyer implied that the politician was obligated to Baiju on account of the officer allegedly letting his son go scot-free in the drug case.
Baiju Paulose replied that he had not arrested the politician’s son in this or any other case.
It is noteworthy that the line that the prosecution case was cooked up by the police for their personal agenda is a defence that Pillai has used in other cases as well. Both in the TP Chandrasekharan case and the Chandrabose murder case, the senior lawyer had made this argument.
TNM spoke to a former client of Pillai, who credited the lawyer for the High Court order overturning his conviction in the trial court. “Raman Pillai is the only reason I’m walking free now,” he said. He added that he paid Rs 85 lakh in fees to the lawyer for the three years that his case was under the High Court’s consideration.
Yet, the client does not believe his acquittal to be the result of his lawyer’s legal prowess. “Raman Pillai knows how to manage people, be it witnesses or judges. He knows exactly what will sway a particular person in his favour.”
Witness manipulation is common practice in criminal law, Sandhya Raju said, adding that Pillai is adept at it. “He does witness management, which means that he will try to settle the case out of court until the trial begins,” she said.
In several of the cases that Pillai has appeared for, a clear pattern of crucial prosecution witnesses turning hostile can be seen.
The lawyer had been integral in swaying several witnesses in the TP Chandrasekharan murder case, according to his widow and Vadakara MLA KK Rema. During the course of the trial, 52 witnesses changed their statement. Rema remembered Pillai as a sharp personality in the court. “Besides,” she added, “even the judges treated him with respect due to his seniority.”
Following the verdict, the RMP said in a statement, “The CPI(M) in Kerala has collected and spent huge sums of money to protect the accused and pressure the witnesses in the case; 52 witnesses turned hostile in the course of the trial.”
In the actor assault case too, there have been multiple allegations against Raman Pillai and Dileep.
In January 2020, prosecution witness Jinson Eliyas filed a police complaint alleging that a man called him asking him to give a statement in court in favour of Dileep. A phone conversation that Jinson reportedly recorded had the man mentioning Raman Pillai’s name.
On Jinson’s complaint, the Crime Branch served a notice to Pillai in 2022, accusing him of attempting to influence a witness.
The same year, the survivor lodged a complaint with the Kerala Bar Council against Pillai and his two juniors, alleging witness intimidation and evidence tampering. According to her, Dileep’s lawyer attempted to influence a witness in the case with an offer of Rs 25 lakh and five cents of land.
In another instance, first accused Pulsar Suni’s jailmate Vipin Lal, who turned approver in the case, had complained that he had repeatedly received threat calls, and that a man had met him, intimidating him to withdraw his statement.
In February 2022, Pillai was summoned by the Crime Branch in connection with both these cases. The senior lawyer refused, stating, “You have contravened the law in requiring a lawyer who is defending an accused in a case to give information and share communications, which is declared by law as privileged professional communication.”
When asked about this during our meeting, Pillai brushed it aside. “All of those were fabricated allegations,” he said, denying any role in contacting either Jinson or Vipin. “Jinson’s statement wasn’t even of much significance to the case, what would I stand to gain by intimidating him?” he asked.
When these allegations cropped up in the Dileep case, many High Court lawyers protested in support of Pillai.
In the Sister Abhaya murder case, eight witnesses turned hostile since the commencement of the trial in August 2019. The CBI special court had been relying on these crucial witness statements to convict the accused, before they made the U-turn.
In the 2015 Chandrabose murder case, Anoop KC, a security guard who had worked with the victim and witnessed the murder, turned hostile in court, only to later revert to his original statement. Anoop admitted to the court that he had earlier changed his statement under pressure from Nisham’s brother Razak, but ultimately decided to “tell the truth” on his wife’s insistence.
The judgement read, “[Anoop] started his deposition resiling from his statements in the first information statement and statements tendered during investigation. Then when the learned prosecutor was allowed to cross examine him, he revealed that he was compelled to prevaricate by the threats and intimidations of the relatives and men of the accused. He specifically named Abdul Razak, the brother of the accused, among those who had threatened him with dire consequences if he ventured to speak against the accused.”
Chandrabose’s widow Jamanthi told TNM that Pillai was such a “big name” that she had been told tales of his victories by those around her. She recalled him as a non-imposing figure, who could however be very intimidating in court.
Although she had been warned that the opposing counsel might try to influence her to change her testimony, Jamanthi didn’t have any such experience, she said. She added that she is unsure if Anoop turned hostile under the influence of Raman Pillai.
The prosecutor Udayabhanu said, “I consider it the best conviction I ever got in a case. Nisham was sentenced to 38 years in prison with a Rs 75 lakh fine.”
The allegation of witness intimidation is not the only formal complaint levelled against Pillai in connection with the actor assault case. He was also accused of tampering with crucial digital evidence by erasing data on Dileep’s phone by sending it to a forensic laboratory in Mumbai.
After director Balachandrakumar released audio clips of Dileep, his brother, brother-in-law, and two others purportedly watching the assault visuals and allegedly plotting to harm the investigating officers, the Crime Branch booked a second case against him. Following this, Dileep and his associates were asked to submit their phones in court. However, the actor’s phone was immediately flown to Mumbai, where call records and other details were erased.
The owner of the Mumbai laboratory later admitted to the Crime Branch that Dileep paid Rs 75,000 each to erase crucial data from four phones.
On this, Pillai said, “It was my associate lawyer Philip who sent the phone to the Mumbai lab. Dileep’s phone had details regarding several of his business dealings and other matters not pertaining to the case.”
According to Udayabhanu, “There is an allegation that he did a professionally and morally corrupt thing. Even though it did not get much public attention due to his stature and charisma, the allegation that the justice delivery system was interfered with did come up. In my opinion, he, being a senior lawyer, should have been cautious to not let such an allegation surface.”
“A similar allegation had come up during the Chandrabose murder case as well. This allegation was raised by the first witness in court. The witness said that it was due to interventions of the defence lawyers that he was influenced to accept a bribe and turn hostile. As one can tell, the impression that such a revelation causes is not very good. But leaving these two instances aside, Pillai sir is one of the very few lawyers in Kerala who has successfully conducted a wide variety of criminal cases,” Udayabhanu said.
Despite having argued several cases against each other, Udayabhanu is confident that Pillai does not harbour any ill will towards him. In fact, when Udayabhanu himself was accused of conspiracy in a murder case, he enlisted Pillai to appear for him. “The case against me was fabricated by certain individuals, there is no substance to it. The trial is yet to begin,” he explained, adding, “When I was booked in the case, someone close to me approached Raman Pillai sir on my behalf. He readily agreed to take up the case.”
It was not Pillai’s first time appearing for and against the same person in different cases. In the custodial murder case of Sampath, the first accused in the Puthoor Sheela murder, Pillai appeared for the accused police officers. “In the Sheela case, the principal investigation officer was treated as hostile as he did not support the prosecution’s case. I then had to work against him as the special public prosecutor. Later I appeared for certain police officers in the Sampath murder case,” he said.
At 77, Raman Pillai’s life revolves solely around his work. “Do you not get bored with having no life outside of court?”
“Absolutely not. Boredom would come if there is no work.”