Actor Dileep, an accused in a case relating to the sexual assault on a woman actor, convinced the Supreme Court on Wednesday to adjourn hearing on his plea for a copy of the memory card to January 22 next year. The memory card is believed to be crucial in the sexual assault case. The adjournment from the top court has placed the actor in a strong position to urge the trial court to freeze the framing of charges in the case. The trial court was scheduled to frame charges on December 18.
Appearing before a Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Mr. Dileep’s advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that his client’s plea for a copy of the memory card should be heard after the court reopens in January, post the winter break.
Mr. Rohatgi said the trial court cannot possibly frame charges on December 18 when the apex court was already seized of the question as to whether the memory card was a ‘document’ under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If it is indeed a ‘document’, it has to be first shared with the accused in the spirit of fair trial.
ADVERTISEMENT
Kerala government was reluctant about the idea of postponing the case and asked the court to consider keeping it on December 14. Senior advocate Harin Rawal, for Kerala, submitted that the State has already kept its affidavit against Mr. Dileep’s plea ready. Nevertheless, the court adjourned the case to January 22.
The State has contended that the memory card is not a document under Section 207 but only a “material object,” which need not be mandatorily shared with the accused.
Mr. Raval said the card was seized and produced in the trial court as a material object and not a document.
ADVERTISEMENT
On Tuesday, Mr. Rohatgi said the term ‘document’ has a wide connotation. “A 100 years ago an inscription on a tombstone was considered a document by courts,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.
Mr. Rohatgi had on December 3 submitted that there were several discrepancies in the police claim and the memory card would prove him right. He had said that unlike what the police claimed, the video seemed to not have been shot in a moving car. The car was stationary. Further, “human voices could be heard in the background.”
The visuals of the alleged incident in the memory card, Mr. Rohatgi had submitted, would help to prove that it was not a “forced situation.” Mr. Rohatgi said the clip was a “compendium of five or six distinct pieces.” The senior lawyer had finally said that his client had “no connection” with the alleged incident, which happened in February last year.
Mr. Rohatgi said the original mobile phone or memory card is untraceable and a copy of the visual came out when an accused shared it with his lawyer, who turned it over to the Magistrate.