Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case

During the hearing, the Single Judge asked the State what explanation Balachandrakumar provided for the delay in revealing the conspiracy. To this, the DGP responded that Balachandrakumar was closely associated with Dileep back then since he was directing a film involving the actor.

"He was, admittedly, like an inmate at Dileep's residence."

The Court wondered if that didn't suggest an ill-motive on part of the director. The DGP replied, 

"That is a matter of investigation. It may even come out that Balachandrakumar was also a part of the conspiracy. But right now we have to unravel if there was a conspiracy in the first place... Unlike other cases of conspiracy, in this case, there is a person who directly witnessed the conspiracy."

The Prosecution also addressed the issue of the accused allegedly tampering with the mobile phones they surrendered. It was submitted that in the 6 of 7 phones they submitted, there was evidence that a large chunk of data was erased just before they were surrendered and that in one of the phones, around 32 contacts were deleted. 

However, senior counsel Agarwal interjected at this point to clarify that the said phone did not belong to the petitioner. The DGP agreed to this but argued that while it may not belong to the petitioner, it did belong to one of the other accused who was part of the conspiracy which is sufficient to prove that they have tampered with evidence.

When the Court suggested that what they erased need not be evidence, the DGP responded that although that might be true, being the accused in a case, they ought not to have done that.

"After the court specifically asked them not to tamper with the mobile phones, can they clear data? Now that it is clear that they have come here with soiled hands, they cannot seek discretionary relief from this court. It should also be noted that their reply to this is an insult to the Intelligence. They claimed that the data they erased was not connected with the conspiracy or the people involved therein. How can they take such a stand? How can they decide for themselves what is required for the investigation? How can they be the judge of their own cause?"

The Judge agreed with this. 

It was further submitted with reliance placed on several precedents that it is manifest that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and mere inferences are sufficient to attract the offence. The Meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances, the DGP added.

Regarding the petitioner's prayer for the investigation to be transferred to another agency, the DGP argued that there was absolutely no whisper of the current investigation proceeding in the wrong direction or on a demonstrable bias or malafides.

"The Investigating Officer is conducting an impartial investigation. If the investigation shows some offences are not attracted, they will be deleted from the charge sheet. We are proceeding with an open mind, looking into all possibilities in the case. Every material we collect is tested and retested for its veracity. It's nothing like the narrative put out by the petitioner. We assure all the accused that the investigation will only be in accordance with law."

The DGP submitted that in the absence of established malafide or bias there cannot be a prayer to change the investigating agency merely based on apprehensions of the accused.

When the prosecution completed its arguments, Senior Advocate Agarwal rebutted all the submissions and pointed out that the entire case was based on some stand-alone internal utterances that could under no circumstances be sufficient to be the subject of an FIR. He added that the prosecution was misusing the provision of criminal conspiracy by dealing with it like it is a mathematical formula. If that is the threshold the law requires, we are leading the way to a police state, the counsel argued. 

It was also asserted that the issue of tampering with mobile phones was entirely irrelevant in the present case and that it was brought up by the prosecution merely to distract the court.  

When the petitioner vehemently objected to the involvement of certain officers in the investigation, the Court asked if the probe can be handed over to any agency where these officers were not involved. The petitioner answered this query by pointing out that the Court may not ask the prosecution to constitute a team without these officers since even today these officers are not investigating officers on paper.

"The SIT is a mere curtain to create an illusion of separation."

As such, they sought for the investigation to be handed over to an independent agency. This was resisted vigorously by the prosecution. 

The decision in this case will possibly be declared in a week. 

Background: