Dileep case final report in three weeks, says Special Investigation Team
Kochi: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Tuesday submitted before the Kerala High Court that it can file the final report in the actress assault case in three weeks. The prosecution made the submission while opposing the fifth bail application filed by actor Dileep. The court adjourned the hearing of the case to September 26. Dileep filed the bail plea a day after the Angamaly Judicial First Class Magistrate dismissed his petition. The magistrate had observed that considering the gravity of the offence, he could only apply for default bail after 90 days of the investigation if the prosecution fails to file the final report.
Even in the latest remand report submitted on September 16 for extending the judicial custody of the petitioner, no other fresh allegation was made about the alleged conspiracy other than those in the remand report filed on July 11, Dileep had contended. According to the petition, the offence, including 376 (D) (gangrape) of IPC cannot be bought against Dileep even on the admitted facts. As per section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a total bar in using the confession of an accused given to the police. Similarly, as per the settled prevailing law for more than a century, the confession of an accused cannot be used against his co-accused as evidence.
The records clearly reveal that there was not even a whisper that the object of the conspiracy alleged to be hatched by Dileep and Pulsar Suni was to abduct the actress and commit gangrape or rape her. Besides, the first information given by the actor stated that Suni had told her that he had got a quotation to take and handover naked videos of her to the party that engaged him. Hence the offence punishable under 376 (D) could not be attributed against Dileep with the aid of section 120 B (criminal conspiracy).
The investigation agency had no case that the petitioner had ever threatened or influenced any witnesses. Hence, there is no justification for his continued detention on the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses. The petitioner had been in custody since July 10 and the investigation was almost complete. Therefore, further custody appeared to be not required for further investigation, Dileep argued.
