.jpg?$p=86eb8fa&f=16x10&w=852&q=0.8)
Dileep | Photo: Mathrubhumi
New Delhi: In an affidavit filed in Supreme Court, actor Dileep claimed that the prosecution is producing erroneous arguments to re-examine Manju Warrier in the 2017 actress attack case. He argued that Manju Warrier is re-examined only to fill gaps in the evidence collected by the prosecution. He also added that the request to re-examine actress Kavya Madhavan's father and mother is to delay the trial proceedings.
The prosecution approached the trial court seeking permission to re-examine Manju Warrier to identify whether the audio recordings submitted by director P Balachandrakumar contain the voices of Dileep, his brother, sister and brother-in-law. Meanwhile, Dileep questioned the prosecution's move by filing an affidavit in Supreme Court. Manju Warrier holds a grudge towards me. Further, the forensic report on audio clips is under the consideration of the trial court, Dileep claims in the affidavit.
Meanwhile, the prosecution demanded re-examining of Dileep's mother to verify the phone number used by Kavya Madhavan to contact Dileep. Furthermore, the prosecution requested to re-examine Dileep father to find out the reason behind opening a bank locker in Kavya's name.
Dileep also argued that the probing agency, prosecution, and survivor are trying to ignore Supreme Court's directive to complete the trial proceedings within a stipulated time frame.
Earlier, the apex court said it will not allow the reexamination of witnesses. The apex court has also directed the eighth accused Dileep to inform his response to the prosecution's demand to examine 41 witnesses in writing within two days.
The Supreme Court had earlier asked the trial court to complete the trial by January 31. Appearing for Dileep, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi pointed out that in a letter addressed to the trial court judge on January 19, the prosecution requested to examine 41 more witnesses in the case.Several of these witnesses were examined once. Rohatgi also claimed that they have not informed the court why these witnesses were being reexamined.
RELATED STORIES
.jpg?$p=a9f79d0&f=1x1&w=100&q=0.8)
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
.jpg?$p=08e4011&f=1x1&w=100&q=0.8)
.jpg?$p=70eca95&f=1x1&w=100&q=0.8)
.jpg?$p=08e4011&q=0.8&f=16x11&w=104)
.jpg?$p=70eca95&q=0.8&f=16x11&w=104)
