[Breaking] Kerala High Court rejects plea seeking transfer of trial against Dileep in abduction, assault case

The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to transfer the trial in the abduction and assault case, in which Malayalam actor Dileep is an accused, from the judge currently hearing the case to another judge (Victim v. State of Kerala; State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni and Ors.).A Bench of Justice VG Arun dismissed the plea by the victim as well as the prosecution, seeking transfer of the case from the present trial court alleging bias on the part of the judge. The trial is ongoing before an Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.."It goes without saying that unless the Court and the prosecutor work in sync it will result in either the guilty escaping from the clutches of law or the innocent being punished. I am confident that in the endeavour to reach the truth and render justice, the Special Public Prosecutor and the defence lawyers will work in tandem as is expected of them. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no sustainable ground to allow the prayer for transfer. Consequently the transfer petitions are dismissed."Justice Arun, reading from the Operative part of the Order.The prosecution's request for a stay on the order for a week so as to enable them to approach the Supreme Court was also refused by the court which stated that allowing the same "would not be proper"..It was case of the prosecution and the victim that continuation of the trial before the current judge would defeat the ends of justice..The victim and prosecution had earlier filed a plea before the additional Sessions Judge itself to halt the trial and had sought leave to approach the High Court but it was rejected on October 23. This led to the current plea before the High Court..Justice V.G. Arun dismissed the transfer petitions stating that there were only "mere allegation of apprehension of bias" rather than reasons to support apprehensions of bias..Dileep and his associates are being tried for hatching a conspiracy to take revenge on a female actor in the Malayalam film industry by having her abducted, sexually assaulted and photographed.Six persons have been arrested and are arrayed as accused in the case. It was alleged that the victim had a role to play in Dileep’s separation from his former wife.On October 16, the prosecution in the case, led by Special Public Prosecutor A Suresan, had voiced its protest over derogatory remarks made by the Additional Sessions Court Judge against the Special Public Prosecutor during the hearings..Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, appearing in the High Court for the victim, stated that around 20 lawyers were present during one instance in the courtroom, despite entry being restricted, all of whom were noting her demeanor and making her repeat statements again and again (the trial was in camera)"Nothing was done to stop this," the Senior Counsel emphasized..[Actor Assault case] Victim harassed in open court, 20 lawyers were present despite in-camera proceedings: Prosecution tells Kerala High Court .The prosecution had also highlighted instances of irregularity such as where service of copies of certain forensic reports to the prosecution and the victim was dispensed with."This is an unusual case where even the prosecution alleges bias on the part of a trial proceeding," the counsel submitted. .In today's Order, the Court also recorded that the prosecution failed to raise timely objections to the manner in which the victim was questioned and cross-examined. ."having failed to initiate appropriate and timely action to redress the grievance, the prayer for transfer on that ground cannot be entertained."Justice Arun records in his Order.The extended duration of the cross-examination has been attributed to the closure of the Courts amid the pandemic, and the wait for certain forensic reports sought by the eighth accused, Dileep, per a Supreme Court direction..Breaking: Malayalam actor Dileep not to get copy of memory card containing video of alleged sexual assault of actress, may inspect contents: SC.The Court recorded that the Special Prosecutor was seasoned, and not easily swayed by the "charged" atmosphere in the courtroom, and exhorted the prosecution "not to seek conviction at all costs or be an avenging angel for the victim, but to ensure that justice is delivered."."..by the mere fact that the trial is held inside a closed court hall, it does not become ‘in camera’ trial, unless the purpose of providing a comfortable atmosphere for the witnesses to depose freely, is maintained. These are aspects to be borne in mind while conducting trial ‘in camera’..."Justice V.G. Arun.The High Court also rejected the averments of the prosecution and the victim's counsel, that the Presiding Judge ought to have recused herself when serious allegations against her were raised..In this regard, the Court said:.The endeavour of every Judge should be to get rid of his personal predilections and prejudices and to decide the cases dispassionately, and not to recuse whenever his or her actions are questioned..The Court also found no material to show that the Judge had publicly reprimanded one of the prosecution witnesses, as was contended by the prosecution..Finally, on the averment that certain petitions moved by the prosecution were not disposed of expeditiously, the Judge reasoned that the prosecution ought to have approached the High Court seeking an expeditious disposal. There was nothing to show that the delay in disposing petitions prejudiced the trial in any manner, the Court has additionally observed in today's bail order..On these grounds, the transfer petitions were dismissed..Read the Order here: