From proving enmity between Dileep and the survivor to establishing a conspiracy between Dileep and Pulsar Suni (Sunilkumar), the prosecution in the actor assault case has failed on multiple counts, observes Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese in her judgment, which convicted six persons, including Suni, of gang rape and acquitted actor-producer Dileep of conspiracy to commission the crime.
In a 1,700-odd page judgment convicting six men of abducting and gang-raping a Malayalam actor in 2017 but acquitting actor-producer Dileep of conspiracy, the Principal Sessions Court at Ernakulam dismantles the prosecution’s case against him. The court finds that investigators failed to establish either the alleged enmity that purportedly motivated the crime or the conspiracy said to have linked Dileep to the prime accused, Pulsar Suni, flagging evidentiary gaps, unexplained delays and uncorroborated claims.
The prosecution’s case against accused no. 8, Dileep, hinged on the allegation that he commissioned the rape through a contract (colloquially called a “quotation”) with Pulsar Suni because he held a grudge against the survivor for disclosing his alleged extramarital relationship with an actor—now his wife, Kavya Madhavan—to his first wife, actor Manju Warrier.
According to the judgment, the prosecution failed to establish that such enmity existed between the survivor and Dileep in 2012 and 2013, the years leading up to the assault in February 2017. It could not prove even the basic allegation that the survivor was responsible for the dissolution of the marriage between Manju Warrier and Dileep; the judgment upholds the defence’s argument that the marriage ended by mutual consent. The court also notes that the prosecution could not prove that Dileep intimidated the survivor during a celebrity event — a European tour in 2012.
Along the same line, the judge observes that the prosecution failed to prove Dileep’s “aggravated enmity and anger” towards the survivor because it disregarded the testimony of a prosecution witness—a makeup artist—who said the survivor was distressed due to Dileep during rehearsals for an Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (AMMA) show at Abad Plaza, Ernakulam, in 2013. The investigating officers delayed recording this make-up artist’s testimony until 2022. “Why she was not interrogated in 2017 is not explained by the prosecution… (this) shakes the credibility of evidence tendered,” the judgment notes.
The prosecution also failed to prove that the survivor lost acting opportunities due to Dileep’s alleged enmity. “It is pertinent to note that the defence during cross examination of the survivor brought out that PW1 (survivor) acted in Malayalam and Kannada movies during the period she claimed to be ousted from Malayalam film industry,” the judge observes, adding that “the prosecution failed to adduce evidence” to show Dileep maintained “hatred, ill-will and planned to destroy the career of” the survivor. The court adds: “I find that except the testimony” of the survivor, “nothing is there to show that accused no. 8 ousted her from the film industry.”
The judgment further holds that the prosecution failed to prove that Dileep conspired with Pulsar Suni — between March 2013 and April 2, 2013 — to commission the rape and its video recording. The prosecution claimed that, in 2013, Dileep met Suni in a room at Abad Plaza, Ernakulam, and offered him Rs 1.5 crore to commit the crime. It also argued that Dileep “hatched criminal conspiracy” with Suni on several occasions from November 1, 2015, to November 14, 2016. The prosecution additionally contended that Suni was present at the location of the film Sound Thoma, starring Dileep, and that the two developed a rapport when Suni allegedly “settled” issues with local goondas.
Story continues below this ad
Prosecution witnesses, however, could only establish that Suni was a driver for actor Mukesh during the shooting of Sound Thoma, and nothing more, the judgment notes. While the prosecution produced a voucher (No. 57) from the film’s production house showing a paltry payment to one Sunilkumar designated as a goonda, the judgment accuses the investigating officer of a “shameless attempt to show that name Sunilkumar” corresponded with accused no. 1, Pulsar Suni. “These vouchers will not support the prosecution to prove the involvement of accused no. 1 in settling the goonda intervention at the location” of Sound Thoma, the judge observes.
The prosecution also failed to prove that Pulsar Suni had contact with Dileep at Hotel Arcadia during the shoot. “No records were available to prove the stay of accused no. 1 at Hotel Arcadia,” the judgment notes, even though Suni claimed he stayed there and Dileep denied it. One accused’s testimony cannot be held against a co-accused, the court says. On the alleged conspiracy at Abad Plaza during AMMA rehearsals, the judgment accepts the defence argument that while Dileep attended rehearsals there, he did not stay in Room No. 410, where the conspiracy was allegedly hatched.
The court also disregards the alleged confession made by Dileep while in police custody. Dileep was arrested on July 10, 2017, remanded on July 11, and police custody was granted from July 12 to July 15. The prosecution claimed his confession led to the discovery of facts, including places where the conspiracy with Suni was hatched. The judgment notes: “No material is available before the court to show that in between the shooting of Sound Thoma and rehearsal camp at Abad Plaza, both accused no. 1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused no. 8 (Dileep) met together.”
The court further discredits the prosecution’s claim of a money trail between Dileep and Pulsar Suni. The prosecution alleged that Suni was paid Rs 10,000 initially, then Rs 1 lakh, and later Rs 30,000 towards the “quotation”. The judge finds that the prosecution failed to establish that Dileep met Suni at Hotel Joys Palace to exchange money. While the prosecution relied heavily on the alleged confessions of Suni and Dileep, “not even a single piece of paper is produced to substantiate that the accused no. 1 (Pulsar Suni) made the confession”. The judgment also notes that “no attempt was made by the investigating officer to obtain CCTV footage” of the alleged meeting. It adds: “Except [the] allegation regarding payment, details such as mode of payment, place of payment and time of payment are not stated by the prosecution.”
