Woman judge no longer required for trial, HC told in actress assault case
The trial was being held in the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court chaired by a woman judge. However, the petitioners allege that the conduct of the court was biased. During the cross-examination, the actress was pushed to a state where she started crying.
The trial was being held in the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court chaired by a woman judge. However, the petitioners allege that the conduct of the court was biased. During the cross-examination, the actress was pushed to a state where she started crying.
The trial was being held in the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court chaired by a woman judge. However, the petitioners allege that the conduct of the court was biased. During the cross-examination, the actress was pushed to a state where she started crying.
Kochi: A woman judge is no longer needed to complete the trial in the case of abduction and harassment of an actress for filming and spreading defamatory visuals as the cross-examination of the victim is complete, both the actress and the government have told the high court.
The arguments on the petitions filed by the actress and the prosecution to transfer the trial to another court were completed. Justice VG Arun adjourned the verdict in the case. The court has also extended the stay on the trial till Friday.
The trial was being held in the Ernakulam Additional Special Sessions Court (CBI court) chaired by a woman judge. However, the petitioners allege that the conduct of the court was biased. Both the parties said that during the cross-examination, the actress was pushed to a state where she started crying. The full details of the court proceedings were handed over in a sealed envelope by the government, citing the fact that the victim had faced indecent questions during cross-examination.
The court and the prosecution should work together and ‘ego’ should not ultimately affect justice, the HC stated orally.
What the government argued
Despite the trial being stayed, the court kept other petitions related to the case for consideration and asked the investigating officer to make an alternative arrangement in the absence of the present special prosecutor, senior government pleader Suman Chakraborty pointed out. If the court does not allow the change, the prosecution will not be able to proceed with the case, he said.
The actress' cross-examination lasted for 11 days and on most days it extended till 7 pm. The court did not block the presence of up to 15-19 lawyers during the cross-examination, which was not conducive for a secret trial. It called the lab directly for the test report and handed over confidential documents to the defendant without the knowledge of the prosecution.
The applications, including for making amendments in the charge sheet, were not considered. The demand for the prosecution for a change of court was not brought to the notice of the High Court. Instead, the applications were dismissed after hearing the arguments.
What the actress argued
The prosecution itself has made it clear that it has no faith in the trial court. Despite facing difficulties and pressure during cross-examination, the court did not intervene effectively.
Witnesses are also dissatisfied with the court's position. Allowing questions that were hurtful reeks of bias. A woman judge was sought in the hope that she would be able to speak confidently, but the experience was quite the opposite, she said.