Kerala High Court Allows Pulsar Suni To Remain Physically Present In Trial Court To Witness Proceedings In Actor Assault Case

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed Sunil N.S., also known as 'Pulsar Suni', who is the main accused in the 2017 Actor Assault Case, to remain physically present before the trial court to witness the proceedings. 

Justice K. Babu allowed the petition and observed that the same ensures fair trial. 

"Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner as it entails the interest of the accused, the victim, and of society. Fundamentally, a fair trial has a sacrosanct purpose. It has a demonstrable object that the accused should not be prejudiced," the court observed. 

The prosecution case against Suni is that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy by actor Dileep, the former along with certain other accused had abducted and sexually assaulted the victim in a moving car in the year 2017. While Suni is the main accused in the case, Malayalam actor Dileep is a co-accused and is alleged to be the brain behind the conspiracy. There are 10 accused in the 2017 case.

Offences under Sections 120 (B), 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 201, and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 A and 66 E of the Information Technology Act were accordingly invoked against the 10 accused persons. Suni has been in jail for almost 6 years now.

Suni in his petition claimed that the trial court through video conferencing allows him to remain present at the commencement of the trial for 5 or 10 minutes.

"This is a peculiar kind of case wherein the petitioner/1st accused and 8th accused are having totally conflicting interests. In such a case, without the presence of the petitioner in the dock, the defense may not be able to countercheck many of the aspects during the trial. Even during the examination of the witness, documents will have to be shown to the accused, and facts verified with him," the plea averred. 

The petitioner further argued that he has a right to be present before the trial court under Section 272 Cr.P.C., and that the right granted by the procedural law could not be taken away unless and until the accused disturbs the trial of the case. 

"Being a mute spectator during video conferencing is not what the statute envisages by making the presence a statutory right. Hence the petitioner is before the Court for a direction for his production before the Court," he said.

It was contended by the petitioner that the lawyer in the trial court would be in a better position to obtain instructions and clarification from the petitioner during the trial if he is physically available. 

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had no difficulty in producing the accused if a direction to that effect is given. 

"Appreciating the petitioner’s contentions on the touch stone of the principle of fair trial, I am of the view that a direction is to be issued to the trial Court to see that the petitioner is physically produced before the Court during the trial," the court observed, while directing the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, to ensure the physical presence of the petitioner during the trial. 

Sunil had earlier approached the High Court again seeking bail in the case. When the matter came up before the Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan on February 2, the Court noted that the Apex Court had vide its order dated July 13, 2022, allowed the applicant to move the High Court for bail if the trial was not concluded within reasonable time. It had therefore directed the Registry to get a report about the time required to dispose of the Sessions Case.

Case Title: Sunil N.S. v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

Click Here To Read/Download The Order