LSG spinner Digvesh Rathi handed one-match suspension for "notebook celebration"
_vb_66.jpeg)
Lucknow (PTI): Lucknow Super Giants leg-spinner Digvesh Singh Rathi has been handed a one-match suspension after another instance of his "tick the notebook" celebration following his dismissal of Sunrisers Hyderabad opener Abhishek Sharma during an IPL match here.
Abhishek was also reprimanded for the same incident and received a 25 percent fine along with one demerit point for what was his first offence.
For Digvesh, this was his third Code of Conduct breach and he has been suspended from LSG's next encounter against Gujarat Titans in Ahmedabad having accumulated five demerit points after three separate offenses of same nature.
"Digvesh Singh, Bowler, Lucknow Super Giants (LSG) has been fined 50 per cent of his match fees for breaching the IPL Code of Conduct during his team’s match against Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH)," the IPL release stated.
"This was his third Level 1 offence under Article 2.5 this season and hence, he has accumulated Two Demerit Points, in addition to Three Demerit Points he had accumulated earlier - One Demerit Point against Punjab Kings on April 01, 2025 and Two Demerit Points against Mumbai Indians on April 04, 2025.
"As he now has Five Demerit Points this season - which result in a one-game suspension - Digvesh will now be suspended for LSG’s next game - against Gujarat Titans on May 22, 2025 in Ahmedabad."
For Level 1 breaches of the Code of Conduct, the Match Referee’s decision is final and binding," it further stated.
The 25-year-old has been LSG's only silver lining in an otherwise disastrous campaign with 14 wickets from 12 games at an economy rate of 8.18 per over.
However, he appears to have learned little from previous incidents. His now customary "tick in notebook" celebration has gone viral on social media but match referees haven't taken too kindly to it.
Most of the time, his celebrations come after being blasted by the opposition batters. In this instance, it came after India opener Abhishek had smashed 59 off 20 balls, including half a dozen sixes.
LSG were completely outclassed by SRH and the defeat ended their chances of IPL qualification.
In a social media video posted by LSG earlier in the season, teammate Nicholas Pooran was seen jokingly asking Digvesh about his obsession with the notebook celebration.
His response?
"Because I am from Delhi."
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.
