SPP in the actor sexual assault case resigns

Earlier,A Sureshan had resigned from the post following the High Court’s dismissal of a plea by the survivor for changing the Sessions Court judge.

V.N. Anilkumar,Special Public Prosecutor in the case relating to the sexual assault on woman actor has submitted his resignation letter to the State government and Director General for Prosecution T.A.Shaji.

Mr. Anilkumar, a former CBI prosecutor, has put in his papers when the trial is underway in the case before the Additional Special Sessions Court, in which actor Dileep is one of the accused.In fact, he is the second prosecutor to tender resignation from the post within a year.

Earlier,A Sureshan had resigned from the post following the High Court’s dismissal of a plea by the survivor for changing sessions court judge Honey Verghese.

The government is yet to accept Mr. Anilkumar’s resignation from the post of Special Public Prosecutor. He sought to resign from the post citing the uncongenial atmosphere in the Additional Special Sessions Court. It is significant that the resignation comes in the wake of new developments in the case.

Mr. Anilkumar reportedly walked out of the court in a huff on Wednesday when the court asked the prosecutor to submit his request in writing for deferring the examination of Investigation Officer Baiju Poulose.

The prosecution also filed a petition on Wednesday before the sessions court seeking a further investigation into the case following the revelations of a man who claims to be Dileep’s friend.In an interview to a Malayalam channel, Balachandrakumar, who claimed that he used to discuss film projects with actor Dileep, said he had seen ‘Pulsar’ Suni, one of the accused in the case, at the residence of Dileep.

He said it was Dileep’s brother Anoop who introduced Suni to him in December 2016 at the actor’s residence at Aluva. He had also alleged that Dileep had got a copy of the video on the sexual assault of the woman actor even before it was produced before the court.

Dismissing the plea of the survivor to change the trial judge, the High Court had observed that the reasons cited for transferring the trial were unsustainable. A mere allegation of apprehension of bias was not enough to accept the plea to transfer the case. The Supreme Court later upheld the High Court verdict while dismissing an appeal against the High Court judgement.

The survivor had submitted in her petition before the High Court that during the cross-examination various questions were asked by defence counsel affecting her character and conduct. Those questions were objected to by the prosecutor, but they were overruled by the trial judge who permitted such questions to continue. The government had also submitted that a fair trial in the case would not be possible in the presence of the Additional Special Sessions Judge.

Source: Read Full Article