Kerala actress attack case: Attempt to sabotage evidence of memory card thwarted by survivor; Here's how
Kerala actress attack case: The survivor had alleged that the perpetrators who illegally accessed the memory card were being protected. The victim alleged that the inquiry was not conducted in a fair and free manner.
FollowThe Kerala High Court recently instructed the Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge to provide copies of statements from individuals examined during the fact-finding inquiry to the survivor in the actress sexual assault case, which implicates Malayalam actor Dileep. The survivor filed two applications with the Court. The first application requests copies of statements made by individuals during the fact-finding inquiry. The second application seeks to annul or invalidate the inquiry report dated January 08, 2024, submitted by the Ernakulam Sessions and District Judge.
The survivor claimed that the fact-finding inquiry was conducted in secrecy, depriving her of any opportunity to participate. Furthermore, she alleged that even after the inquiry concluded, she was denied access to the report. This compelled her to seek intervention from the Court to obtain it. The survivor also asserted that she was not provided with the records of the inquiry report or witness depositions, indicating malice on the part of the inquiry authority.
The allegation suggests that the inquiry authority sought to protect the perpetrators who illegally accessed the memory card and pen drive. Furthermore, it is claimed that the authority attempted to justify the unlawful actions of themselves, as well as other judicial officers and subordinate staff.
What happened in the case?
In the actress attack case, the memory card served as crucial evidence. Under the IT Act and the Evidence Act, if it is determined that the documents have been tampered with, the credibility of the evidence may be compromised. If the accused, including actor Dileep, contends that the memory card, with its altered hash value, is not authentic, the court will be obliged to consider this argument.
The memory card stands as crucial evidence in the case. Under the IT Act and the Evidence Act, if it's determined that the documents have been tampered with, the credibility of the evidence may be compromised. If the accused, including Dileep, argues that the memory card, with its altered hash value, is not authentic, the court will be obliged to consider this contention.
The discovery of the altered hash value occurred when a cloned copy of the memory card was prepared for testing at a central lab, following a directive from the Supreme Court. This information was conveyed to the trial court judge by the state forensic department in January 2020 and has since been corroborated by police investigations. However, the judge did not disclose this information to either the High Court or the Special Prosecutor during the trial proceedings.
Hash values serve as unique numerical identifiers that represent the contents of files after cryptographic algorithms have processed those contents. They function akin to fingerprints for files, as any alterations to a file's contents will result in a significant change to its hash value.
The memory card underwent examination at the Central Forensic Lab at the request of the 8th accused, Dileep. As per the Supreme Court's directive, only Dileep would have access to the test results during the trial proceedings. This implies that apart from the judge, Dileep is likely the only individual privy to the hash value information.
Had director Balachandra Kumar not disclosed further details prompting additional investigation, the matter could have remained entirely concealed from the prosecution. This would have allowed the defendants to challenge the authenticity of crucial evidence in the case and potentially reject its admissibility. The current imperative for the survivor is to pursue the case and probe into how such a significant lapse occurred on the part of the trial court judge.
In addition to requesting the SIT investigation, the survivor-actress had requested copies of the statements made to the session judge, who had already looked into the claims of unauthorized access. The court granted the survivor's request for a certified copy of the statements collected by the district court judge.
