The 1714-page judgement on the Kerala actor sexual assault case has reignited debate on how a team of officials in Kerala Police conducted the investigation, leaning heavily on a fragile narrative rather than corroborated proof to prove conspiracy in an important case of this magnitude involving prominent actors of the Malayalam film industry.
It was on December 8 that Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese convicted the first six accused while acquitting the remaining accused, including actor Dileep, against whom the prosecution failed to present concrete evidence.
Now that the judgement is in the public domain, a meticulous examination of it reveals that the prosecution failed to establish the conspiracy charge levelled against Actor Dileep. In fact, the judgement has exposed how the police investigation had leaned heavily on a fragile narrative on the conspiracy angle rather than corroborated proof.
From the outset, the case drew extraordinary public and media attention as the victim was a renowned actor of the Malayalam film industry and one of the main accused was another leading actor.
From the re-reading of the judgement, it appears that the investigators appeared to lock on early to a theory of conspiracy, constructing a storyline that sought to explain motive, execution, and aftermath in neat sequence. However, as the trial progressed, this narrative struggled to withstand judicial scrutiny. The court dissected each strand of evidence threadbare—call data records, witness testimonies, electronic material, and circumstantial links—only to find gaps that could not be bridged by inference or assumption.
Several prosecution witnesses contradicted earlier statements or failed to support the case in material aspects. Digital evidence, projected as crucial to establishing the conspiracy, was found to be incomplete, inadequately authenticated, or to lacked a clear chain of custody. Financial and logistical links that were said to point to a larger conspiracy remained speculative, unsupported by independent corroboration.
“The acquittal of the alleged principal conspirator exposed the central weakness of the prosecution’s approach. Once the core narrative began to crumble, the remaining evidence stood isolated, unable to independently sustain charges,” a senior police officer said, adding that the investigation appeared to have proceeded with a preconceived conclusion, leading to a selective reading of facts rather than an open-ended pursuit of truth.
Legal experts say the verdict is a reminder of the perils of narrative-driven policing in sensational cases. “The judgement exposes the fact that evidence has been gathered to fit a theory of conspiracy. The courts operate on a different plane, where each claim must be proven through reliable, legally admissible material. Narratives may dominate headlines, but in courtrooms, only evidence endures,” a senior lawyer said.
