Who was that woman? Serious investigative shortcomings flagged in actress assault case

Kochi: The trial court flagged serious lapses in the investigation into the actress assault case, noting that key claims made by the survivor were not properly probed. The survivor had clearly stated that the first accused told her the crime was carried out on a “quotation” given by a woman. The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court observed that, however, no investigation was conducted into this crucial assertion. The court issued a detailed 1,714-page order highlighting these shortcomings.

According to the survivor’s statement, the first accused, N S Sunil, also known as Pulsar Suni, said there was a quotation for the crime. He allegedly told the survivor that the recorded footage would be handed over to those who placed the quotation and that they would be contacted after 10 am the following day to discuss further details. The survivor further stated that the first accused explicitly indicated the quotation had come from a woman. He also reportedly asked the survivor whether she was aware of her own enemies. Despite these statements, the court noted that no investigation was carried out into the claim that a woman had given the quotation.

The initial investigation report stated that the first to sixth accused had abducted the actress and planned to extort money by threatening to circulate the footage. Actor Dileep was later named as an accused based on a letter written by the first accused from jail. While the first accused initially claimed the quotation was given by a woman, he later changed his statement, alleging that Dileep had given it. The court observed that the prosecution should have investigated the identity of the woman mentioned earlier.

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a criminal conspiracy between the first accused, Pulsar Suni, and the eighth accused, Dileep. It also ruled that the prosecution could not prove that Dileep had removed or destroyed evidence related to the case from his mobile phone. The court further noted that there was no proof that the alleged eighth gave a quotation.

The final report submitted on April 18, 2017, detailed the criminal conspiracy involving the first to sixth accused and referred to the ongoing efforts to recover the mobile phone used to record the footage. The court pointed out that despite being questioned several times before the submission of the final report, the survivor did not make any statement implicating Dileep. The prosecution’s claim that the survivor was afraid to name him was rejected, with the court noting that the investigation team included senior police officers, leaving no reason for fear. The court also pointed out that the survivor had given an interview against the eighth accused in 2015, which could have been brought to the attention of the Special Investigation Team.

In the further investigation report filed on November 22, 2017, the prosecution alleged that the quotation was given by the eighth accused and claimed a criminal conspiracy between him and the first accused. The court noted that women who were close to the first accused were not examined as witnesses and that the possibility of their knowledge of the crime was not considered.

The prosecution argued that the conspiracy to assault the actress began in 2013. The attack was carried out in 2017. The prosecution claimed that the delay occurred because Pulsar Suni was absconding in another case.The court found this explanation unconvincing. It also rejected the argument that the quotation was issued with an advice of photographing the engagement ring. Claims that Pulsar Suni rehearsed the attack in Goa and subsequently went near Dileep’s house in Aluva were also dismissed.

The court raised pointed questions over the missing mobile phone allegedly used to record the assault. The phone has not been recovered, and investigations to trace it are ongoing. Searches were conducted at multiple locations based on the first accused’s statements.

About the phone

According to the investigation report, the phone was allegedly in the custody of the first accused’s lawyer and was later destroyed by another person. The report also states that efforts are continuing to locate the device. The court questioned how further investigation could proceed when the phone is claimed to have been destroyed.

Memory card

The trial court addressed concerns regarding a change in the hash value of the memory card. The court clarified that allegations of fabrication did not affect the trial, noting that the eight files containing the recorded footage remain secure.