'Every Accused Has Right To Fair Trial' : Dileep Before Kerala High Court In His Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Actor Assault Case

The Kerala High Court on Monday allowed the impleading application filed by the survivor in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 case.

After hearing the petitioner today, Justice Kauser Edappagath recorded the counsel's opposition but allowed the application since she has sufficient cause to be an interested party.

"Considering the fact that the petitioner is the victim, she definitely has interest in the matter. The petition is allowed." 

The Judge also prima facie opined that an investigation may be necessary to find out if there is any truth in the allegations raised against the actor. 

"Isn't it a matter for investigation? When a witness, even if he is unreliable, brings out incriminating evidence against one of the accused in a case, shouldn't it be investigated?" 

In 2017, a popular actress abducted and raped in a moving vehicle pursuant to a conspiracy, allegedly schemed by Dileep. Being the 8th accused in the case, he is now undergoing trial before the CBI Special Judge. 

The case made headlines once again in 2022 when film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor bringing out new allegations against him. 

Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai extensively argued the case in physical court today, taking the Bench through the entire timeline of the case and the specific allegations levelled against Dileep. 

The senior counsel argued that it was a 'sham' investigation and report filed solely due to personal vendetta against the actor. It was contended that filed merely to fabricate evidence and to delay the trial before the Special Sessions Court. 

"Every accused has a right to a fair trial. Just because he is accused in a case doesn't mean his rights are suspended," submitted Pillai. 

He further contested the power of the Magistrate to order further investigation under the ambit of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

It was strongly asserted that the primary goal of the prosecution in the sexual assault case was to protract the trial since they could not yet find any material against Dileep in the said case.

Raman Pillai further submitted that there was no explicit material to bring out that the first accused in the 2017 case, Pulsar Suni had any connection whatsoever with Dileep or his brother or that any of them had transferred any amount to the first accused. 

When the Court asked the counsel if there was any material to prove the alleged malafides behind seeking further investigation, Pillai responded that the circumstances were sufficient to prove the same. 

The Court also informed of the details of the murder conspiracy case pending against the actor where he has been accused of plotting a criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the 2017 sexual assault case. Dileep was recently granted anticipatory bail in this case by another Single Judge. 

Pillai then took the Court through Balachandrakumar's statement where he accuses Dileep of watching the recording of the sexual assault incident at his residence along with other accused. 

The director had deposed that around 5-6 recordings of the incident were stored in the tablet of a VIP (who remains unnamed as of now) in the Malayalam movie industry who had then handed over the device to Dileep. 

The counsel pointed out that this story was cooked up to make it look like Dileep was in possession of these clips and added that there was no shred of truth in these allegations.  

In the course of the arguments, Pillai also submitted that quite a few investigating officers had conducted a massive raid in Dileep's place and that they had not even spared his 80-year-old mother's room. 

As such, it was concluded by the senior counsel that the very statement that led to the Crime Branch seeking a further probe into the sexual assault case was filed with ulterior motives. He added that the statement was filed solely for the investigating officer to file a an FIR against Dileep. 

Dileep had accused the case to be a 'deliberate and calculated attempt' of the prosecution to sabotage the trial before the Special CBI Court. He has further pointed out that the impugned report containing new information was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 29th December 2021, the exact date when the Officer was scheduled to be examined as the last witness for the prosecution at the trial court.

The accused has also contended that this report is unsustainable for the mere reason that it goes against the clear judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court against investigating further if the charges are framed without obtaining formal permission of the Court.

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr