Can mere utterances be treated as conspiracy, Kerala HC asks Crime Branch

Kochi: Can mere utterances by a person be treated as conspiracy, the Kerala High Court asked the Crime Branch on Wednesday while hearing actor Dileep’s plea to quash the FIR accusing him and others of conspiring to kill and threaten officials probing the 2017 actress assault or transfer the case to CBI.

”There is only reference to utterances in the first information statement. Can mere utterances be treated as conspiracy? Can the inference of conspiracy be made merely from the utterances,” were the queries raised by the high court.

The queries were put to the investigating agency by Justice Ziyad Rahman A A who also asked what was the indication that a decision or agreement was arrived at to harm the officials probing the 2017 case.

The court also observed that director Balachandra Kumar, based on whose revelations the FIR under challenge was registered, appeared to have witnessed some utterances which he perceived to be a conspiracy.

Director General of Prosecution (DGP) T A Shaji and Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan, who represented the investigating agency, contended that the alleged utterances by the accused of threatening to harm the officials indicated what was in their mind and was a ”manifestation” of their agreement or conspiracy.

They claimed that Kumar was only able to record some bits and pieces of the utterances, while much more was said and done by the accused which he understood to be a conspiracy.

His recordings lend credence to his claim that there was a conspiracy, they claimed.

The DGP admitted that an inference of conspiracy cannot be made solely based on the utterances and said ”that is why we are investigating”.

He said that presently there were serious allegations against the actor which pertained to the safety and liberty of the officials probing the 2017 case and it needed to be ascertained how far the conspiracy was taken forward and for that a proper investigation was necessary.

The hearing in the matter commenced in the post lunch session with Dileep’s lawyers continuing arguments from where they left off a day ago.

It was contended on behalf of the actor that in the instant matter, the complainant, victim, witness and investigator/ investigating agency were all merged into one.

It was also alleged that the murder conspiracy FIR was an outcome of a personal animosity against the actor as all the male members of his family have been implicated in it.

After arguments on behalf of the actor concluded, the prosecution commenced arguments which remained inconclusive and are expected to continue on Thursday.

Dileep’s lawyers on Tuesday had argued that there was absence of any material in the murder conspiracy FIR to indicate commission of any of the offences attributed to the accused and the entire case was based on something allegedly ”wished” by him.

He also claimed before the high court that offences in the latest FIR were non- cognizable and therefore, it could not have been registered without prior permission from a magistrate.

The actor and five others were booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 116 (abetment), 118 (concealing design to commit offence), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (criminal act done by several people) and later section 302 was also added to it for allegedly conspiring to murder the officials probing the 2017 actress assault case.

The actress-victim, who has worked in Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam films, was abducted and allegedly molested in her car for two hours by some persons who had forced their way into the vehicle on the night of February 17, 2017 and later escaped in a busy area. The entire act was filmed by those persons to blackmail the actress.

There are 10 accused in the 2017 case and police have arrested seven. Dileep was arrested subsequently and released on bail.