The trial in the female actor case was deferred by the Kerala High Court for a week.
The Additional Special Sessions Judge, (SPE/CBI)-3, Ernakulam, had earlier scheduled the trial to be resumed on November 3. Actor Dileep is the eighth accused in the case and has been charged with conspiracy.
It was while considering the plea of the victim and the State for a change of trial court that the High Court issued the order. The court also directed the prosecution to produce before it, the application seeking time to move the High Court seeking change of court.
S. Sreekumar, the counsel for the victim, submitted that questions tarnishing her character and conduct were asked during the cross-examination. Though the prosecutor raised his objections, it was overruled and such questions were permitted to be asked.
He submitted that a change of court would not affect the time limit fixed by the Supreme Court for completing the trial. If the prosecutor gives up his engagement, it could also delay the trial, he submitted.
The court asked the counsel whether the cumulative effect of his arguments should lead the court to the only conclusion that the judge was biased.
As the counsel pointed out, asked the judge, there could have been flaws in the manner in which orders were passed or the delay in passing the orders. “But does it reflect that there is bias on the mind of the judicial officer,” the court asked.
The Senior Public Prosecutor Suman Chakravarthy submitted that the opinion of the trial court judge whether was still interested in continuing with the trial may be sought. Usually, when such allegations are made, the judges would recuse themselves from hearing the case, he said.
He submitted that the victim was once cross examined from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m and several unwarranted questions were put to her. She had to provide the details in the presence of a battery of of lawyers and the accused, who would be present in the court, Mr. Chakravarthy pointed out.
Though several objections were raised during several occasions, the court didn’t record it. It was only after the prosecutor stating that he would walk out of the court that some objections were recorded. The State sought a change of court as it was one of the rarest of rare cases, he submitted.
