Scathing Court Ruling Details Police Lapses in 2017 Actor Assault Case, Acquitting Dileep of Conspiracy
Table of Contents
The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court has delivered a damning indictment of the police inquiry into the 2017 assault of a prominent actress, systematically dismantling the prosecution’s case against actor Dileep – officially listed as Accused no. 8 – and ultimately leading too his acquittal on charges of criminal conspiracy. In a detailed 1,709-page verdict,Judge Honey M Varghese identified meaningful investigative failures,including the failure to examine key witnesses and alleged coercion of a cyber expert.
the judgment, accessed by Onmanorama, reveals a case riddled with procedural errors and unsubstantiated claims. Central to the prosecution’s argument were allegations that Dileep orchestrated the creation of a misleading WhatsApp group and actively destroyed crucial digital evidence. The court found both claims to be without merit.
The Unsubstantiated WhatsApp Group Allegation
Prosecutors alleged that Dileep masterminded a fake WhatsApp group, titled “Dileepine Poottanam” (Dileep must be trapped), populated with high-profile individuals – including Director Aashiq Abu, journalist Nikesh Kumar, and
key witness Testimony and Coercion
the testimony of Sai Sankar (PW214), a cyber expert initially believed to have assisted Dileep in deleting incriminating data from his iPhones. the prosecution claimed Sankar had confessed to witnessing Dileep delete the data.
However, Sankar dramatically reversed his statement in court, claiming his initial confession was made under duress.He stated, “That was a lie I told. I knew it was a lie at the time I said it; I said it out of fear.”
The court took serious note of evidence – including audio recordings and a writ petition – suggesting intimidation by investigating officers DySP Baiju paulose and SP Sudarsan. The evidence indicated threats were made to arrest Sankar’s wife and file additional cases against him if he did not cooperate. “It is seen that PW261 [dysp Baiju Paulose] coercing him to surrender,” the court noted, adding that Sankar only surrendered due to fear for his wife’s safety.
Procedural Lapses and Contradictory Evidence
Further undermining the investigation’s credibility, the court highlighted a critical procedural lapse regarding a hard disk seized from Sai Sankar on February 25, 2022, at the Aluva Metro Railway Station. Despite claiming the disk contained deleted data from Dileep’s phone, the police inexplicably failed to submit it for forensic examination.”Why this seizure was effected in this manner is not explained by (the) prosecution… Why didn’t this hard disk examine forensically is not explained by prosecution,” the judgment stated.
The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the police’s account, noting that investigators initially claimed data deletion occurred at the office of Dileep’s lawyer, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai, but later admitted this was false.
Contrary to the prosecution’s argument that dileep’s lawyers attempted to destroy evidence at Lab Systems India Pvt Ltd in Mumbai, the court found evidence supporting the opposite. Email correspondence and testimony from the Lab Director (PW216) revealed the lawyers sent the phones to Mumbai to retrieve data proving a conspiracy against Dileep by Director Balachandrakumar. The Lab Director testified that no data deletion was requested or performed, and forensic reports confirmed the 12 deleted chats were personal and unrelated to the crime.
“The evidence of PW216 would clearly show that it is a false assertion [that data was deleted]…The prosecution failed to prove that accused no.8 deleted data connected with this case and thereby caused disappearance of evidence,” Judge Varghese concluded.
Ultimately, the court’s finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of destruction of evidence was pivotal in Dileep’s acquittal on the conspiracy charge, marking a significant setback for the investigation and raising serious questions about the conduct of the police inquiry.
