Contradiction in victim's statement: 'Madam' becomes shield for Dileep; investigation flawed, says court

KOCHI: Dileep was saved by the inconsistency in the statement of the victim in the actress case and the lack of adequate investigation into the disclosure of the first accused that the quotation was given by a 'madam'. This was made clear in the more than 1500-page judgment of the Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Court. The court also pointed out that the investigation team had initially suggested that the accused had committed the crime to blackmail the actress and extract money.

👉During the attack, Suni had said that the quotation was given by a madam. This is mentioned in the victim's statement. No serious investigation was carried out in that direction. Dileep argued that he was framed in the case on the instructions of ADGP B Sandhya, bypassing Special Investigation Team head Dinendra Kashyap.

👉The prosecution argued that the conspiracy began in 2013. The attack took place in 2017. The police said that the delay was due to Suni being absconding in another case. However, the court found that he was not absconding. During this period, the accused had been present in the court and at home. He also worked as actor Mukesh's driver. The police later clarified that they did not investigate this. The court did not take this into confidence.

👉The court found that the defaming footage captured by Pulsar Suni did not contain a wedding ring as alleged by the prosecution and that the victim's engagement took place after the crime. In order to establish that Dileep was involved in the conspiracy, the police said that Dileep had suggested that the wedding ring be filmed to identify the actress. This was not in the chargesheet filed initially. The actress handed over the ring to the investigation team later when she came to give her statement. There is no explanation as to why the victim did not mention the wedding ring in any of her previous statements. With this, the prosecution failed to prove that Dileep and Suni conspired about this.

👉The prosecution argued that Pulsar Suni rehearsed the attack when the actress arrived in Goa for a film shoot. The victim, who regularly travelled in the car driven by Suni, did not say that she suspected that. The witness's statement is that Pulsar Suni arrived near Dileep's house in Aluva after returning from Goa. It is not credible as the date is not specified.

👉The victim told the court that her father used to accompany her to the film sets until 2015, that her mother used to come with her after her father's death, and that she started travelling alone when her mother became unwell. The court said that the defence's allegation that this is a new story and that there is no mention of this father or mother in any of the initial statements deserves consideration.