Actor Sexual Assault Case : Kerala High Court Reserves Orders On Petitions Of Victim & Prosecution To Change Judge

The Kerala High Court on Monday reserved orders on the petitions filed by the prosecution and the victim seeking transfer of the sensational actor sexual assault case to another court.

A single bench of Justice V G Arun also extended the stay of the trial proceedings till the pronouncement of orders.

The bench took the case for orders after extensively hearing the Special Public Prosecutor Suman Chakravarthy and Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, who represented the victim.

The Prosecutor submitted that the trial judge remained a "mute spectator" when the victim was harassed and intimidated by the lawyers of the accused during cross-examination. When the prosecution expresses lack of confidence with the judge, the proper course would have been to write to the High Court informing about the same. But the presiding judge chose not to do so, the Prosecutor submitted.

Senior Advocate Sreekumar submitted that the victim was forced to undergo an "ordeal" of cross-examination for about 9-10 days, during which irrelevant and unnecessary questions maligning her character were raised.

"'Most of the time I(victim) was weeping. I was compelled to speak about the horrific details before a large group of advocates. The judge could not control the court. No judge would have allowed to put such questions to a victim of a horrific sexual crime.", he submitted.

The senior counsel went to the extent of submitting that there was "manifest bias" on the part of the presiding officer.

The judge directly contacted the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for a report on the examination of the memory card (which allegedly contains the crime scenes) and handed over the same to the accused, without giving its copy to the prosecution, alleged the senior lawyer. 

The Prosecutor added that such conduct of the presiding judge was against the orders of the Supreme Court, as per which the copy of the report should be shared with "all concerned", which includes the prosecution.

At this juncture, Justice Arun asked why no objection was taken to the approach of the judge earlier and why the orders passed by the trial court were not challenged before.

The judge asked if the failure to challenge the orders of the trial court would amount to 'acquiescence".

In reply, Senior Advocate Sreekumar submitted that the victim was hoping for a "congenial atmosphere" during the trial and was hoping that wisdom will prevail with the judge.

"But now we have come to such a stage that fair adjudication is not possible. There is a tolerance level. When that was crossed the present petition has been filed", he added.

At every stage, there was harassment of the victim and the witnesses, he asserted.

The Prosecutor submitted that the Prosecution tried to "adjust to the maximum and to ensure to go along with the court" and that it was no longer possible.

Justice Arun further asked if the victim can seek transfer when the judge was specially assigned the case considering her request for a woman judge.

In reply, Sreekumar submitted that the requirement of woman judge was only necessary for the purpose of recording the statement of the victim and when that stage is over, the rest of the trial can be handed over to another court.

"I thought that a woman judge would be more comfortable for me. But now see the hardship I had to undergo? Can I aspire for a fair trial now when many allegations have been against the presiding judge?", he submitted.

In the transfer application, the victim stated that she was aggrieved by the "biased and hostile" attitude of the presiding judge.