The Kerala HC was listening to a plea from the surviving actor, who had alleged that the judge had a “discriminatory approach” while listening to the case.
In a significant development in the sensational Kerala actor assault case and a setback for the surviving actor, the Kerala High Court on Friday rejected his statement and refused to transfer the trial proceedings to a different court. The HC was considering the statement of the surviving plaintiff and the state government, which had requested that the trial be moved out of the current court. The surviving plaintiff, the special prosecutor and the state government had alleged a “discriminatory approach” on the part of Judge Honey M Varghese, who is familiar with the case.
The High Court justice court, VG Arun, ruled that there were no “sustainable reasons” to transfer the case. During the hearing, the government requested an extension of the suspension of the trial, but the Superior Court also rejected that request.
“Unless the court and the prosecution work in sync, either the culprit escapes the clutches of the law or the victim is denied justice,” the court observed.
The 2017 case concerns the abduction and sexual assault of an actress in Kerala. Malayalam actor Dileep, who is the eighth defendant in the case, was allegedly the mastermind of the assault, allegedly out of personal resentment against the surviving actor. The trial of the case began in November 2019 at the Court of Additional Sessions (special CBI No III) in Ernakulam and was being heard by Judge Honey M Varghese. In particular, it was at the special request of the surviving actor, that a judge should try the case, that the Kerala High Court had appointed Judge Honey M Varghese to preside over the trial.
What the surviving actor had sought
The unprecedented development in the case began when Special Prosecutor A Suresan approached the court of first instance, asked him to stop the process and claimed that the court is “very biased, which is detrimental to the judicial system and to the entire accusation”.
After the trial court ruled his guilty plea, he moved to the Kerala High Court, which was when the surviving plaintiff and the state government also approached the High Court to ask for the trial to be transferred.
The survivor and the state government had told HC that a fair trial would not be received in the case if the case continues to be tried by the court of Judge Honey M. Varghese. The survivor had alleged that the court was “biased and hostile” towards her. The survivor’s attorney recently reiterated to the HC that the survivor has not insisted that a judge should consider the trial.
Read: ‘Biased and hostile attitude’: Survivor in case of assault on an actor in Kerala wants the judge to be changed
The survivor had also made serious accusations against the trial court, claiming that the judge did not interfere even when Dileep’s lawyers harassed her during cross-examination. “The court was a silent spectator,” the survivor had said in her plea to HC.
The government also raised serious questions about the “closed-door” proceedings, as the trial court did not restrict the number of lawyers present in the courtroom. The state government questioned how 30 lawyers could be present in court while the survivor was questioned for days together. Survivor stated in the HC that the court had even examined the images of the assault in the presence of this baton of lawyers, 19 of whom were Dileep’s defenders. “I was crying. I was forced to speak, something that no woman dares to speak in public, ”the survivor had told HC.
Read: ‘I was crying, the judge did not ask the others to leave’: the actor who was attacked tells HC
The survivor also alleged that the court deliberately failed to record certain parts of the statements she made during the trial.
The state government had argued in HC that the trial court judge was willing to try the case despite the fact that the Special Prosecutor had proposed to stop the process. The judge was supposed to report this to the HC, but rather the petition was resolved, the state government’s attorney had told HC.
According to instructions from the Supreme Court, the trial in the case was supposed to be completed in six months. The trial court, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, moved to South Carolina in search of more time to complete the process. In the case that has about 350 witnesses, the questioning of 80 witnesses has been completed.
.
