Actor Assault Case | Why Trial Is Protracted? Supreme Court Asks Kerala Govt; Questions Need To Examine Additional Witnesses

The Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Dipankar Datta questioned the move made by the State on January 19 to examine 41 more witnesses in the case, shortly ahead of the January 31 deadline set for the trial.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the accused submitted that State wanted to further examine 41 witnesses. “There was an order in 2019 to complete trial in six months because it's a very sensitive trial, in camera. Now six months has become 24 months. The judge has examined 237 witnesses in allegations of rape...every time when the time is coming to an end, a list of 40 witnesses is shown to the judge", he argued.

Rohatgi further pointed to the Bench's previous order which had directed the complete trial by January 31. "Ten days before that day, a list to examine 41 witnesses was given". The senior counsel also highlighted that the State and the survivor had sought to transfer the trial to another court by levelling allegations against the judge and also her husband.

Turning to the State, the Bench asked, “You can't go on adding the witnesses. Are you not required to specify the purpose as to why every witness is being called for chief examination? Do not just give us the papers, tell us why the trial is being protracted like this.”

“Multiple supplementing and recalling witnesses from two years ago”, Rohatgi said.

“What is this concept of supplementation of witnesses after witnesses? There has to be some methodology. Even supplementary chargesheet does not give you the license have entire trial reopened this way. Balance has to be there”, the Bench observed.

Rohatgi submitted that at least 10 of the 41 witnesses were examined earlier and many have been recalled without telling the purpose to the judge.

Put all this in writing, the Bench said.

“With reference to submissions on part of State on necessity of examination of 41 witnesses as proposed under a list dated January 19, 2023, learned counsel for petitioner prays for time to place his response”, the Bench recorded in its order while granting Dileep two days’ to file his response. The case will come up next on February 17.

Case Title: P Gopalkrishnan @Dileep v State of Kerala | M.A in Criminal Appeal No. 1794/2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order