New Delhi, Dec 3 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Monday asked Malayalam actor Dileep if the memory card of a mobile on which an alleged assault on a noted actress was recorded could be treated as a "document".
Seeking his response to its poser whether memory card could be described as a document under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Hemant Gupta agreed with Kerala High Court order, holding that the video was too sensitive to be made public.
Dileep is one of the accused in the case of assault on the actress.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on December 11 as senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said he needed time to prove that the memory card of the mobile was a document.
Rohatgi appeared for actor Dileep.
He cited discrepancies in the police claim to buttress his plea for a copy of the original video of the alleged assault. He also sought to cast doubt on the veracity of the video.
The Kerala High Court had on August 14 turned down accused Dileep's demand for a copy of the video of the abduction of an actress and her harassment at the hands of the perpetrators who took her around in a vehicle in Kochi for two hours in February 2017.
A lower court had in February turned down the same request. The assailants had dumped her near a director's house after committing the crime.
While the Angamaly magisterial court rejected his plea on the grounds of the victim's privacy and that it could be misused, the High Court was convinced that this was a delaying tactic as the trial was set to commence soon.
The abduction took place when the actress was on her way to Kochi from her house. A gang of criminals led by Pulsar Suni, who is the prime accused, took her hostage.
Dileep was arrested on July 10, 2017. After 85 days in jail, he got conditional bail.
A total of 12 persons, including Dileep are accused in the case, while his former wife Manju Warrier, is a key witness.
The actor was given over 700 pieces of evidence in the case, but not the video. However, the lower court did allow him and his counsel to view it.