SC set to hear Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's plea against arrest
New Delhi (PTI): A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will on Friday hear Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea against his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in an excise policy-linked money laundering case.
As soon as a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud assembled, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, mentioned the matter for urgent listing.
Singhvi said he was mentioning a matter of "some significance and urgency".
"If this process goes on, I am very sorry to say, before the first vote is cast, a lot of senior leaders will be behind bars. I am imploring your lordships to take it up urgently either in the middle of the board or the end of the board," Singhvi said.
Justice Chandrachud said a special three-judge bench is convening in Justice Sanjiv Khanna's court, and Singhvi can mention the matter before that bench.
"The special bench is over, almost," the senior counsel said.
"Then you can go right away to Justice Khanna and it will be taken up," the CJI said, adding, "Just go to that bench because that bench is available".
"You can just mention that the Chief Justice has assigned it to Justice Sanjiv Khanna's court," Justice Chandrachud told Singhvi.
Singhvi then rushed to Justice Khanna's court but the special three-judge bench also comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi, which had assembled to hear BRS leader K Kavitha's plea challenging her arrest in the Delhi excise policy scam case and the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), was over by that time.
The senior counsel mentioned the matter before Justice Khanna, who was sitting in the regular bench along with Justice Dipankar Datta.
Singhvi said the CJI has asked him to mention Kejriwal's plea before Justice Khanna's bench.
Justice Khanna said Kejriwal's plea will be heard by a three-judge bench.
"We will assemble after the regular bench gets over in a while," Justice Khanna said.
Kejriwal had moved the Supreme Court late Thursday after the ED arrested him.
He was arrested hours after the Delhi High Court refused to grant protection to the AAP national convenor from any coercive action by the agency.
A high court division bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait had refused to grant Kejriwal the relief of interim protection from coercive action and listed his application seeking the relief for consideration on April 22, when his main petition challenging the ED's summons has been fixed for hearing.
The high court had also asked the ED to file its response to Kejriwal's application seeking protection from coercive action.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Actress sexual assault: Court says Prosecution 'miserably' failed to prove conspiracy against Dileep
Kochi (PTI): The prosecution had "miserably" failed to prove the conspiracy charge against Dileep in the sensational 2017 actress sexual assault case, a local court has observed while citing inconsistencies and lack of sufficient evidence against the Malayalam star.
The full judgement of Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese was released late on Friday, and has revealed the judge also pointing out at unsustainable arguments put forth by the prosecution.
"The prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy between accused No.1 (Pulsar Suni) and accused No.8 (Dileep) in executing the offence against the victim," the court held.
It examined in detail, the prosecution's allegation that Dileep had hired the prime accused to sexually assault the survivor and record visuals, including close-up footage of a gold ring she was wearing, to establish her identity.
On page 1130 of the judgment, under paragraph 703, the court framed the issue as whether the prosecution's contention that NS Sunil (Pulsar Suni) recorded visuals of the gold ring worn by the victim at the time of the occurrence, so as to clearly disclose her identity, was sustainable.
The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress' identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.
However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.
As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.
The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.
Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.
The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.
It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.
The court also examined the approvers' statements.
One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim's wedding ring.
The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.
During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.
The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim's identity.
The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim's evidence.
When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the second approver even went to the extent of claiming Dileep had instructed the execution of the crime as the victim's engagement was over.
This showed that the evidence of the second approver regarding the shooting of the ring was untrue, as her engagement had taken place after the crime.
The court further observed that the visuals themselves clearly revealed the victim's identity and that there was no need to capture images of the ring to establish identity.
In paragraph 887, the court examined the alleged motive behind the crime and noted that in the first charge sheet, the prosecution had claimed that accused persons 1 to 6 had kidnapped the victim with the common intention of capturing nude visuals to extort money by threatening to circulate them and there was no mention about Dileep's role in it.
The court also rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused had been planning the assault on Dileep's instructions since 2013, noting that the allegation was not supported by reliable evidence.
It similarly ruled out the claim that Suni attempted to sexually assault the victim in Goa in January 2017, stating that witness statements showed no such misconduct when he served as the driver of the vehicle used by the actress there.
The court also discussed various controversies that followed Dileep's arrest and the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, ultimately finding that the case had not been proved.
Pronouning its verdict on the sensational case on December 8, the court acquitted Dileep and three others.
Later, the court sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Suni, to 20 years' rigorous imprisonment.
The assault on the multilingual actress, after the accused allegedly forced their way into her car and held it under their control for two hours on February 17, 2017, had shocked Kerala.
Pulsar Suni sexually assaulted the actress and video recorded the act with the help of the other convicted persons in the moving car.
