On Thursday, 15 October 2020, when the prosecution tried to stop the trial proceedings, the sensational case relating to the abduction and sexual abuse of a Malayalam film actor underwent a dramatic twist, expressing no trust in the presiding judge.

The Special Public Prosecutor in the case, A. Suresan, filed an application pursuant to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to postpone the ongoing trial proceedings, stating that the conduct of the trial court is "highly biassed" and "detrimental to the entire judicial system and the whole prosecution". The trial is continuing before the court of Ernakulam Special Judge of the CBI, Honey M Varghese, to whom the High Court of Kerala assigned the case last year, considering the request of the victim of the crime that the case be handled by a female judge. 

In a moving vehicle on the outskirts of Cochin city in February 2017, popular Malayalam film actor Dileep is accused of hatching the criminal conspiracy behind the abduction and sexual harassment of the victim, also an actor. So far, the prosecution has examined 55 witnesses in the case, including some famous Malayalam film industry actors. Some of them have reportedly turned hostile. Her statement was also provided by the victim of the crime.

During the witness interview, the Special Prosecutor took exception to some comments and remarks said to have been made by the judge. The application states that, the defence sincerely claims that this court will not have equal trial and justice for the defence as well as the victim. The Special Prosecutor said that to transfer the case to another court, it was approaching the High Court. It also says that in order to move the trial of this case from this Honourable Court to some other court, the prosecution wishes to approach the honourable High Court. It is therefore humbly submitted that the prosecution is not in a position to prosecute the above-mentioned case before that court on the grounds set out above and also on a variety of other grounds which, in order to preserve the interests of justice, are not to be referred to here.

The prosecutor also added that the victim represents the Indian community at large in this case, and any sort of harm to the reputation and faith of the system that occurs in the minds of the public at large would do serious damage to the entire judicial system.

In November 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that the trial in the case be concluded expeditiously, "preferably within six months," thus denying Dileep's appeal for a copy of the memory card allegedly containing the visuals of the sexual crime.

In July 2017, the Kerala Police arrested Dileep, claiming that he was the mastermind of the crime. The High Court granted him bail after 88 days in custody. The prosecution recently filed an application demanding the cancellation of his bail alleging that the witnesses in the case were influenced and threatened by him.

A gag order banning the media reporting of the proceedings in the in-camera trial in the case was passed by the trial court in March 2020. However, as permitted by the Nipun Saxena judgement of the Supreme Court in 2017, the Court allowed reporting of issues.

In the case of Nipun Saxena, as far as reporting on in-camera proceedings is concerned, the SC noted. “This is not to say that such cases can not be reported. The press can report that before the court case was fixed and some witnesses were examined. It can report for what purposes the case was listed, but it can not report what happened within the court or what the victim or witness statement was. It can not disclose the evidence.”


This news has been reported by Yashasvi Kanodia