[Actress Assault Case] Kerala High Court Directs Sessions Judge To Provide Copies Of Statements Of Persons Examined During Inquiry To Survivor

The Kerala High Court today directed the Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge to give the survivor in the actress sexual assault case, involving Malayalam actor Dileep copies of statements of persons examined during the fact-finding inquiry.The survivor approached the Court with two applications, the first application to seek copies of statements of persons examined in the fact finding inquiry. The Second application seeks to set aside or quash the inquiry report dated January 08, 2024, submitted by the Ernakulam Sessions and District Judge. Justice K Babu reiterated that it never intended that the fact finding inquiry to be treated as confidential and observed that the survivor was entitled to copies of statements of persons examined. “Petitioner sought statements of persons examined during the inquiry to ascertain the veracity of the inquiry report. There is no reason to decline the reliefs sought. The Sessions judge is directed to henceforth issue copies of statements of persons who were examined in the inquiry,” stated the CourtThe Court passed the above order on a plea filed by the survivor seeking a court-monitored investigation into the alleged leakage of visuals from the Memory Card, and the change in hash value of the memory card thereof, that was kept in court custody.Last year, the High Court directed the Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge to conduct a fact finding enquiry on the allegations raised by the survivor in the 2017 actor sexual assault case pertaining to unauthorized access and copy and transfer of the visuals from the Memory Card and Pendrive relating to the incident while it was in court custody. The survivor alleged that the fact finding enquiry was conducted in secrecy denying even her an opportunity to participate in it. The survivor alleged that after the enquiry was over, she was even denied a copy of the report of the fact finding report and was constrained to approach the Court to obtain it. It is alleged that the survivor was not provided records of enquiry report or depositions of witnesses and this shows malafides on the part of the enquiry authority. The survivor further alleges that enquiry report was legally and factually unsustainable and that basic norms to be followed in a fact finding enquiry was not observed. It was stated that the enquiry should have been conducted with the aid of police to collect cyber forensic evidences to find out if the culprits have accessed, viewed, transmitted or copies visuals from the memory card. It is alleged that the fact finding enquiry was conducted without taking expert evidence and without taking any scientific evidence. The survivor states that the finding in the inquiry report that the illegal access of the memory card happened since the High Court gave no proper instructions regarding handling sensitive materials is wrong and legally unsustainable. It is alleged that the fact finding enquiry report does not give proper explanations regarding the illegal access of memory card. It is alleged that the enquiry authority was trying to safeguard the culprits who illegally accessed the memory card and pendrive. It is further alleged that the enquiry authority is trying justify the illegalities committed by herself, other judicial officers and subordinate staff. The survivor alleges that the enquiry report wrongly found that the contents of the memory card were never copied or transmitted without conducting scientific examination of memory card. Thus, the victim alleges that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair and free manner. The survivor seeks direction from the Court to register separate cases regarding illegal access of the memory card and to conduct individual investigations into it. The survivor further seeks that an investigation be ordered to be conducted by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the State Police Chief under the supervision of the Court.The Public Prosecutor objected to both the applications and stated that those were not maintainable. It was argued that interim applications could not be entertained in a petition that was already disposed of. The Court stated that it will hear on the maintainability of the petition to set aside the inquiry report after the reopening of the Court. The matter has been posted after vacation for hearing. Case Title: XXX v. State of KeralaCase Number: W.P. (Crl.) 445/ 2022

[Actress Assault Case] Kerala High Court Directs Sessions Judge To Provide Copies Of Statements Of Persons Examined During Inquiry To Survivor

Tellmy Jolly

Tags