No other woman judge has ever stood at the centre of one of the most closely watched trials in recent history — the sensational actor sexual assault case that had gripped Kerala for the last eight years.
From the very first day of the trial, every word Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese spoke, every procedural decision she made, and every pause she took was subjected to intense media scrutiny. The case, involving a high-profile film actor and multiple accused, had drawn pressure from various corners. Legal experts debated the evidence nightly on television panels, social media brimmed with speculation and opinion, and interest groups attempted to frame the narrative even before the trial reached its conclusion.
Open Digest spoke to a few close to the proceedings and they said that the task before the judge was far from easy. As a woman judge presiding over a case involving power, celebrity, and allegations of grave violence, she had to face criticism, attempts to question her integrity, and whispers aimed at influencing the process.
Legal analysts point out that the judge should have been fully aware that her final judgment would be dissected line by line, not just by higher courts, but by the media and the public.
When the verdict was finally delivered, her judgment, running into hundreds of pages, convicted the first six accused while acquitting the remaining accused including actor Dileep against whom the prosecution failed to present solid evidence.
A senior lawyer responded to the verdict saying that it was not an easy task for the judge because there was a lot of pressure on her. “The judgement is comprehensive. For the judge, it marked the culmination of a demanding journey undertaken under relentless observation,” said the lawyer.
As reactions emerge against the judge for acquitting the remaining accused for want of evidence, one thing is clear: the trial has really tested her nerve. There are severe criticism from various corners that the punishment awarded to the six convicted was “minimum”. Former High Court Judge Justice B Kemal Pasha told media that the punishment imposed on the convicts was “unjustifiable”.
Former Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali was quoted in Times of India as saying “the sentence imposed on the six convicts was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence allegedly committed by them. He referred to an observation made by the Supreme Court in ‘State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh’ (1996), which stated: “A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim; a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with the utmost sensitivity.”
Meanwhile, the Kerala Judicial Officers Association has approached the High Court seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against persons allegedly defaming Judge Honey M Varghese. In a memorandum, the association stated that certain media houses and individuals with vested interests began disseminating baseless allegations after the judgment was delivered.
