The prosecution contended Dileep and Suni had planned the recording so that the actress’ identity would be unmistakable, with the video of the gold ring intended to convince Dileep that the visuals were genuine.

However, the court noted that this contention was not stated in the first charge sheet and was introduced only in the second one.

As part of this claim, a gold ring was seized after the victim produced it before the police.

The court observed that multiple statements of the victim were recorded from February 18, 2017, following the incident, and that she first raised allegations against Dileep only on June 3, 2017.

Even on that day, nothing was mentioned about filming of the ring as claimed by the prosecution, the court said.

The prosecution failed to explain why the victim did not disclose this fact at the earliest available opportunities.

It further noted that although the victim had viewed the sexual assault visuals twice, she did not mention any specific recording of the gold ring on those occasions, which remained unexplained.

The court also examined the approvers’ statements.

One approver told the magistrate that Dileep had instructed Pulsar Suni to record the victim’s wedding ring.

The court observed that no such wedding ring was available with her at that time.

During the trial, the approver changed his version, the court said.

The Special Public Prosecutor put a leading question to the approver on whether Dileep had instructed the recording of the ring, after which he deposed that the instruction was to record it to prove the victim’s identity.

The court observed that the approver changed his account to corroborate the victim’s evidence.

When the same question was put to another approver, he repeated the claim during the trial but admitted he had never stated this fact before the investigating officer.