Aggrieved by the "biased and hostile attitude" of the court considering the female actor rape case, the survivor has moved the Kerala High Court for transferring the trial to another court.
The State has also moved the High Court for the transfer of court in the case, which is likely to come up for hearing on Friday.
In her petition, the actor submitted that the Special Judge of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-3, Ernakulam, "sat like a mute spectator" when she was examined and harassed by the counsel of actor Dileep, the 8th accused.
The court failed to record certain portions of the testimonies deliberately and without any lawful justification and the repeated prayers of the Special Public Prosecutor to record them fell on deaf ears, she submitted.
She complained that the court failed to restrict the number of lawyers of the accused in the court hall during her examination and thus failed to uphold the spirit of the in-camera trial. The application of the prosecution to cancel the bail granted to Dileep was kept pending. A witness in the case complained to the survivor that she was harassed by the court for one of her Facebook posts, the actor submitted.
Responding to the developments, legal sources maintained that neither the victim nor any witness raised the complaints of bias or hostility during the days of of their examination or the preceding days. A balance was always struck regarding the number of lawyers and other officials who would be present in the court hall from both the prosecution and defence benches in the true spirit of the in-camera proceedings, sources said.
On the complaint of the court remaining a mute spectator, legal sources indicated that the court could interfere in the cross-examination only when some scandalous references are made against the victim or attempts to degrade her character are made in the court. In no other circumstances, the court can intervene in the cross-examination of witnesses, which is part of the fair trial.
Other than the legally permissible interactions, no derogatory and scandalous remarks or allegations were made in the court and the decorum of the judicial proceedings was always maintained, sources said.
