[Actress Assault Case] Kerala High Court rejects transfer petition by survivor to shift trial to another court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea moved by the survivor in the 2017 actress assault case to transfer the trial from the Principle Sessions Court, Ernakulam to any other Sessions Court, on the ground of apprehensions of bias on the part of the Sessions judge. [xxx v State of Kerala and others].Justice Ziyad Rahman A A said that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to justify the apprehensions drawn by the survivor against the Session Court Judge."Thus, after having examined all the relevant aspects, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's apprehensions regarding possible interference in the fair trial are not reasonable. As observed by the Honourable Supreme Court, to judge the reasonableness of the apprehension, the state of mind of the person who entertains apprehension is no doubt relevant, but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension," the Court said. .The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had recently directed that the trial in the case be concluded by January 31, 2023 and suggested that the trial court may decide to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis if necessary..In 2017, several persons including Malayalam cine actor Dileep were arrested and charged with various offenses under the IPC, including Sections 366 (kidnapping), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 376D (gangrape).The prosecution case is that Dileep and his associates orchestrated and executed a revenge crime against the prominent actress by having her abducted and assaulted in a moving vehicle..The survivor had first approached the Court seeking a female sessions judge which was allowed by the Court. She then approached the Court seeking to transfer the trial, alleging bias on the part of the Sessions judge, citing the resignation of a Public Prosecutor over some comments the judge had allegedly made. This was dismissed by the Court.Earlier this year, the Sessions Judge who was trying the case was transferred from the Special CBI Court to the Principle District Court. The trial was transferred along with the judge.The survivor then approached the High Court seeking transfer of the case from the said court to any other Sessions Court having jurisdiction to try the same, making some allegations against the Sessions judge.After analysis of evidence, the Court noted that there is nothing to suggest that a direct or indirect link was ever established between the accused and the Sessions Judge.“There is no material that the learned Sessions Judge contacted the said Adv. Ullas, the maker of the voice message directly, or the accused. The only allegation is that the learned Judge was in contact with the Adv. Santhosh. It is evident that the said Adv. Santhosh was appearing for the accused in the case in respect of which disciplinary proceedings are initiated against her husband," the Court observed.The Court opined that the apprehensions raised by the survivor as well as the evidence submitted in an attempt to prove the same are not sufficient to grant transfer of the trial.“In my view, the contents of the said message are not sufficient to draw an inference against the learned Sessions Judge so as to justify the apprehensions voiced by the petitioner. It is to be noted that the apprehension is in respect of a judicial officer who is under an obligation to dispense justice without fear or favour. Unless the allegations or apprehensions are so strong and create an impression in the judicial mind of this court that such allegations or apprehensions are reasonable and probable, the same cannot be relied upon. Even after anxiously and meticulously examining the same,I am unable to find it that way,” the order stated..The petitioner was represented by advocates A Parvathi Menon, Biju Meenattoor, Paul Varghese, PA Mohammed Aslam, Kiran Narayanan, Prasoon Sunny, Rahul Raj P, Amrutha M Nair and RK Asha.The State government was represented by Senior Advocate and Director General of Prosecution TA Shaji, Senior Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan, and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S.The respondent-accused were represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai, Philip T Varghese, Sujesh Menon VB, Thomas T Varghese, Achu Subha Abraham, VT Litha, KR Monisha, Nitya R, Pratheeksha Kurup VV, N S Sandhya, Alex Joseph, Aswati Suresh, Nisha K Peter, Krishnadas P Nairm KL Sreekala, Haridas P Nair, MA Vinod, Biju Viswanath, Shinto Thomas, Anu Prabhakar, Ashwathy Arjunan, A Mohammed, TRS Kumar, Deepa R Menon, Phijo Pradeesh Philip, and PV Anoop..[Read Judgment]