Suni has been in judicial custody for around six years in connection with the infamous 2017 actress assault case when a prominent female actor was abducted, driven around in a car, photographed and sexually assaulted, allegedly at Malayalam cine actor Dileep’s behest.
Sunil NS, also known by his moniker Pulsar Suni, is the first accused in the case and Dileep is the eighth accused.
The offences charged against the accused persons are under sections 120(b), 109, 342, 366, 354, 354(b), 357, 376(d), 201, 212 with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 66E and 66A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
The trial is currently underway at the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
In his present plea, Suni stated that for over two years of trial proceedings, he was not produced before the trial court due to the restrictions that were in place at the time of the Covid pandemic. However, even after the restrictions were lifted, he was not being produced before the court, Suni claimed.
Instead, the trial court has only been ensuring his presence through video conference for the first 5 to 10 minutes of a hearing, Suni’s plea said.
It was contended that this has caused much prejudice and affected his chance at a fair trial, especially since such a sensational case needs to be challenged with seriousness which can only be done if he is able to witness the entire trial.
The plea pointed out that the accused has a right to be present before the trial court during the trial under section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The right guaranteed by the procedural law cannot be taken away by the courts unless and until the accused disturbs the trial of the case, it was argued.
“Being a mute spectator through video conferring during the trial is not what the statute envisages by making the presence a statutory right. Hence the petitioner is before the court for a direction for his production before the court,” the plea said.
Source: Barandbench
