Kochi: In the detailed verdict in the sensational 2017 actor assault case, in which actor Dileep (Accused No. 8) was acquitted of criminal conspiracy, the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court has delivered a scathing critique of the police investigation. Judge Honey M Varghese, in the 1,709-page verdict, systematically dismantled the prosecution's two central claims against Dileep: the creation of a “false” WhatsApp group to mislead the public and the alleged destruction of critical digital evidence from his mobile phones.

The judgment accessed by Onmanorama revealed significant investigative lapses by the SIT led by DySP Baiju Paulose, including the failure to examine key witnesses, the intimidation of a cyber expert, and the unexplained withholding of seized electronic evidence from forensic analysis.

One of the prosecution's sensational claims was that Dileep orchestrated the creation of a fake WhatsApp group titled “Dileepine Poottanam” (Dileep must be trapped). The alleged group included high-profile names such as Director Aashiq Abu, journalist Nikesh Kumar, and ADGP B Sandhya, purportedly to create a public impression that a powerful lobby was framing the actor.

The court, however, found this claim to be entirely unsubstantiated. The judgment noted that Shone George originally forwarded the screenshot of the group, yet the prosecution failed to examine him.

“Mr Shone George is the most competent person to speak about this particular message. Prosecution Witness 182 was not interrogated about this aspect,” the court observed in the verdict.

The prosecution relied on media person Pramod Raman (PW226) to prove the existence of the group. However, Raman testified that he only learned of the group when summoned by the Crime Branch and had no knowledge of who created it. Dismissing the allegation, the court ruled, “So, this court is not in a position to arrive at a conclusion that this WhatsApp group was created with the assistance of accused no.8.”

Cyber expert witness turns hostile; alleges police coercion
Perhaps the most damaging blow to the prosecution's case was the testimony regarding the alleged destruction of digital data. The prosecution claimed that Dileep, with the help of cyber expert Sai Sankar (PW214), deleted incriminating chats from his iPhones to hide evidence of the conspiracy.

However, Sai Sankar’s testimony backfired. While the police claimed Sankar had confessed to seeing Dileep delete the data, Sankar told the court that his initial statement was a lie told under duress.

The judgment quotes Sankar’s retraction regarding his statement to the police as “That was a lie I told. I knew it was a lie at the time I said it; I said it out of fear.”

The court took serious note of defence evidence, including audio recordings and a writ petition, which indicated that investigating officer DySP Baiju Paulose and SP Sudarsan had intimidated the witness. The evidence suggested threats were made to arrest Sankar’s wife and register new cases against him “on an hourly basis” if he did not cooperate.

“It is seen that PW261 [DySP Baiju Paulose] coercing him to surrender,” the court noted, adding that the witness surrendered only because he feared his wife would be made an accused.

The judgment highlights a glaring procedural lapse regarding a hard disk seized from Sai Sankar. The police claimed this disk contained the data deleted from Dileep’s phone. It was seized by DySP Baiju Paulose at 1:00 AM on February 25, 2022, at the Aluva Metro Railway Station premises.

Inexplicably, the prosecution never sent this crucial piece of evidence for forensic examination. “Why this seizure was effected in this manner is not explained by (the) prosecution... Why didn't this hard disk examine forensically is not explained by prosecution,” the judgment stated.

The court also pointed out that the police prepared a mahazar (seizure report) claiming data was deleted at the office of Dileep’s lawyer Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai. However, the investigating officer later admitted in court that this was false, further undermining the investigation's credibility.

The prosecution had argued that Dileep’s lawyers travelled to Lab Systems India Pvt Ltd in Mumbai to destroy evidence on the phones. The court found that the evidence proved the exact opposite.

Relying on email correspondence and the testimony of the Lab Director (PW216), the court accepted that the lawyers sent the phones to Mumbai to retrieve data to prove a conspiracy against Dileep by Director Balachandrakumar, who had raised several allegations against the actor.

The Lab Director testified that the lawyers never requested any data deletion and that no manipulation took place. Forensic reports confirmed that the 12 chats eventually deleted were personal in nature and unrelated to the crime.

“The evidence of PW216 would clearly show that it is a false assertion [that data was deleted]... The prosecution failed to prove that accused no.8 deleted data connected with this case and thereby caused disappearance of evidence,” the Judge concluded.

With these findings, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of destruction of evidence, thereby playing a pivotal role in Dileep's acquittal on the conspiracy charge.