The Supreme Court has adjourned to January 23, 2019 the appeal filed by Malayalam film actor Dileep that sought access to a memory card that purportedly contains visuals relating to the abduction cum sexual assault of young actress in a moving car on the outskirts of Kochi in February last year.

The apex court has stated that the trial in the case in a Kerala court will not begin until it decides on the actor’s request for access to the memory card.

Yesterday, the state government had contended in the court that a memory card is a not a document under Section 207 of the Indian Penal Code, but a “material object”,  while stalling attempts attempts made by Dileep to get a copy of the memory card. Appearing for the state before a Bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, senior advocate Harim Raval submitted that there is no requirement to share the memory card with Dileep, who is an accused. Raval said the card was seized and produced in the trial court as material object and not a document.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Dileep, countered that the term ‘document’ has a wide connotation. “A 100 years ago an inscription on a tombstone was considered a document by courts,” the former Attorney General submitted.

The apex court is hearing a plea by Dileep, accused in the kidnapping and sexual assault of the actress, to allow him access to a copy of a memory card. Rohatgi submitted that the mandate of a fair trial required him to have a copy of the memory card to prove his innocence.

Rohatgi had on December 3 submitted that there were several discrepancies in the police claim and the memory card would prove him right. He had said that unlike what the police claimed, the video seemed to not have been shot in a moving car. The car was stationary. Further, “human voices could be heard in the background”.

He had further argued that the memory card amounted to a “document” under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision mandates the police to share such a document with the accused so that the latter could effectively prepare his defence during trial. Mr. Rohatgi said the original mobile phone or memory card is untraceable and a copy of the visual came out when an accused shared it with his lawyer, who turned it over to the Magistrate.

 –India Legal Bureau