Published on :
Kerala: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed a plea by Pulsar Suni, the prime accused in the 2017 actress assault case, to be physically present in the trial court to witness all the proceedings in his trial [Sunil NS v State of Kerala].
The Court directed the State prosecution to ensure that the same is done.
Justice K Babu observed that permitting the accused in a case to directly witness the trial against him, is a factor that goes towards ensuring a fair trial.
“Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner as it entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society. Fundamentally, a fair trial has a sacrosanct purpose. It has a demonstrable object that the accused should not be prejudiced. Appreciating the contentions of the petitioner on the touchstone of the principle of fair trial, I am of the view that a direction is to be issued to the trial court to see that the petitioner is produced physically before the court during trial,” the order stated.
Suni has been in judicial custody for around six years in connection with the infamous 2017 actress assault case when a prominent female actor was abducted, driven around in a car, photographed and sexually assaulted, allegedly at Malayalam cine actor Dileep’s behest.
Sunil NS, also known by his moniker Pulsar Suni, is the first accused in the case and Dileep is the eighth accused.
The offences charged against the accused persons are under sections 120(b), 109, 342, 366, 354, 354(b), 357, 376(d), 201, 212 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 66E and 66A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
The trial is currently underway at the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
In his present plea, Suni stated that for over two years of trial proceedings, he was not produced before the trial court due to the restrictions that were in place at the time of the Covid pandemic. However, even after the restrictions were lifted, he was not being produced before the court, Suni claimed.
Instead, the trial court has only been ensuring his presence through video conference for the first 5 to 10 minutes of a hearing, Suni’s plea said.
It was contended that this has caused much prejudice and affected his chance at a fair trial, especially since such a sensational case needs to be challenged with seriousness which can only be done if he is able to witness the entire trial.
The plea pointed out that the accused has a right to be present before the trial court during the trial under section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The right guaranteed by the procedural law cannot be taken away by the courts unless and until the accused disturbs the trial of the case, it was argued.
“Being a mute spectator through video conferring during the trial is not what the statute envisages by making the presence a statutory right. Hence the petitioner is before the court for a direction for his production before the court,” the plea said.
After hearing the arguments made on behalf of Suni, Justice Babu asked the prosecution if it had any objections
“Why stand in the way of a fair trial?”, the single-judge queried.
The prosecution submitted it would produce Suni before the trial court each day if the High Court issues a direction in that regard.
Accordingly, the Court allowed Suni’s plea.
Pulsar Suni was represented by advocates V John Sebastian Ralph and Pratheeksh Kurup VV.
