Dileep’s Trial: Key Insights and Updates

The key evidence – memory card and its tampering

Soon after his arrest, Dileep moved the Supreme Court seeking access to a memory card which contained video footage of the assault. While he was not permitted to receive a copy of the memory card, he was granted permission to inspect the contents of the same – subject to some caveats – in order to present an effective defence.

Then there were allegations that the memory card was accessed illegally when it was in the custody of the trial court.

In 2024, the survivor actress moved the Kerala High Court seeking a court-monitored probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the State police into the alleged unauthorised access. She also alleged that the visuals of the assault had been leaked.

The High Court ordered the sessions court to conduct a fact-finding enquiry and allowed the survivor access to a copy of witness statements recorded during the enquiry.

The survivor subsequently filed an application alleging that the fact finding enquiry was not conducted in “a fair, free and complete” manner. However, in October 2024, the High Court dismissed the same opining that the application raised an issue that warranted the filing of a fresh petition.

During these proceedings, it was revealed that the State Forensic Science Lab found that the memory card was illegally accessed three times while it was in the custody of the court – twice in 2018 and once in 2021.

The reports also stated that the hash value of the device had changed, which meant that the contents in the memory card may have been altered or downloaded.

This prompted the High Court to deliver a judgment with guidelines on storage of digital evidence, openly acknowledging that the system had failed to protect the survivor.

“The necessary conclusion would be that we failed to protect the victim’s interest, which resulted in the violation of her fundamental constitutional right. The victim alleges that the contents of the video footage were copied and transmitted. The emotional and psychological harm being suffered by the victim is beyond imagination,“the Court said.