[Assault On An Actress] The Kerala High Court Denies The Survivor's Transfer Request To Have The Case Heard By A Different Court

On Thursday, the Kerala High Court rejected a request by the survivor in the 2017 actress assault case to relocate the trial from the Principle Sessions Court, Ernakulam, to any other Sessions Court, citing concerns about the judge’s potential prejudice.

The state of Kerala and others vs xx

The evidence presented, according to Justice Ziyad Rahman A., was insufficient to support the survivor’s suspicions of the Session Court Judge.

“Following a thorough examination of all pertinent factors, I have come to the clear conclusion that the petitioner’s concerns about potential interference with a fair trial are unfounded. As stated by the Honorable Supreme Court, there are other factors to consider when determining whether an apprehension is rational, such as the person’s mental state. The Court must not only entertain the apprehension but also determine that it is reasonable “ ~ said the Court.

The trial court may choose to hold the trial on a daily basis if required, the court recommended, noting that the Supreme Court had just ordered that the trial in the case be finished by January 31, 2024.

Several people were detained and charged with offenses under the IPC in 2017, including Sections 366 (kidnapping), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 376D, including Malayalam actor Dileep (gangrape).
According to the prosecution, Dileep and his friends planned and carried out a vengeance crime against the well-known actress by having her kidnapped and assaulted in a moving vehicle.

The survivor had initially gone to the Court to request a female sessions judge, and the Court had granted her request. She then went to the Court to ask for the trial to be moved, alleging prejudice on the part of the Sessions Judge and citing the resignation of a Public Prosecutor as evidence. The Court dismissed this.
The Sessions Judge who was presiding over the trial earlier this year was moved from the Special CBI Court to the Principle District Court. The judge and the trial were both moved.

After making various accusations against the Sessions Judge, the survivor went to the High Court to ask that the matter be transferred from the original court to any other Sessions Court with the authority to hear it.

A direct or indirect connection between the accused and the Sessions Judge has never been proven, according to the Court’s review of the evidence.

“There is no evidence that the learned Sessions Judge spoke with the accused, the voice message’s creator, or the stated Adv. Ullas directly. The learned Judge’s interaction with Adv. Santhosh is the sole allegation. It is clear that the aforementioned Adv. Santhosh represented the defendant in the case in which her husband is the subject of disciplinary action, the Court noted.

The Court held that the fears expressed by the survivor and the facts offered to support them were insufficient to permit relocation of the trial.

“In my opinion, the information in the aforementioned correspondence is insufficient to reach a conclusion against the learned Sessions Judge and support the petitioner’s concerns. It should be underlined that the concern relates to a member of the judiciary who has a responsibility to administer justice impartially. The same cannot be relied upon unless the allegations or suspicions are so compelling that they leave this court’s judges with the sense that they are reasonable and likely to be true. The order stated, “Even after impatiently and carefully inspecting the same, I am unable to find it that manner.

Advocates A Parvathi Menon, Biju Meenattoor, Paul Varghese, and PA Mohammed spoke on behalf of the petitioner.

Senior Advocate and Director General of Prosecution TA Shaji, Senior Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan, and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S all spoke on behalf of the State government.