Memory card is not a document: Kerala
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 12, 2018 00:00 IST
Actor Dileep
Dileep, accused in actor rape case, wanted a copy
Copy of the memory card containing a video clip of the alleged sexual assault on the actress-victim in Kerala is only a “material object,” not a document under Section 207 of the Indian Penal Code, the State government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
It was arguing against an attempt by accused actor Dileep to get a copy of the memory card.
Appearing before a Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, senior advocate Harim Raval, for the State, submitted that there was no requirement to share the memory card with an accused. The card was seized and produced in the trial court as material object and not a document.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for actor Dileep, countered that the term “document” had a wide connotation. “A 100 years ago, an inscription on a tombstone was considered a document by the courts,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.
Justice Khanwilkar posted the case for Wednesday.
‘Many discrepancies’
Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the mandate of a fair trial required that Dileep was given access to a copy of the memory card to prove his innocence.
Mr. Rohatgi had on December 3 submitted that there were several discrepancies in the police claim and the memory card would prove him right. He said unlike what the police claimed, the video did not appear to have been shot in a moving car. The car was stationary. Further, “human voices could be heard in the background”. The visuals of the alleged incident, Mr. Rohatgi had submitted, would help to prove that it was not a “forced situation.”
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 12, 2018 00:00 IST
Actor Dileep
Dileep, accused in actor rape case, wanted a copy
Copy of the memory card containing a video clip of the alleged sexual assault on the actress-victim in Kerala is only a “material object,” not a document under Section 207 of the Indian Penal Code, the State government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
It was arguing against an attempt by accused actor Dileep to get a copy of the memory card.
Appearing before a Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, senior advocate Harim Raval, for the State, submitted that there was no requirement to share the memory card with an accused. The card was seized and produced in the trial court as material object and not a document.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for actor Dileep, countered that the term “document” had a wide connotation. “A 100 years ago, an inscription on a tombstone was considered a document by the courts,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted.
Justice Khanwilkar posted the case for Wednesday.
‘Many discrepancies’
Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the mandate of a fair trial required that Dileep was given access to a copy of the memory card to prove his innocence.
Mr. Rohatgi had on December 3 submitted that there were several discrepancies in the police claim and the memory card would prove him right. He said unlike what the police claimed, the video did not appear to have been shot in a moving car. The car was stationary. Further, “human voices could be heard in the background”. The visuals of the alleged incident, Mr. Rohatgi had submitted, would help to prove that it was not a “forced situation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment