The Dileep Verdict: A Victory for Due Process or a Failure of Justice?

Long before the 11:00 AM judgment by the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam on December 8, 2025, my home was already divided. While awaiting the verdict in the 2017 Kerala actor abduction and assault case, there was absolute consensus on one fact: that the immediate perpetrators—Accused Nos. 1 to 7—deserved to be convicted. The conflict arose solely over the question of the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the prominent actor.

The division in my home—and indeed, across the state—rested entirely on that invisible thread: the conspiracy. While the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove this, resulting in the acquittal of Accused No. 8 and others, the story did not end there. The defining moment occurred when the actor stepped out of the court and alleged a counter-conspiracy: one he claimed was ignited by his former wife and activated by the police. This statement is the trigger for this article, as I wish to examine that profound accusation.

Let us look at some statistics. The population of this country is approximately 1.4 billion, yet the actual strength of the police force is only around 2.1 million. Even more concerning, the number of police personnel dedicated exclusively to criminal investigation is negligible, as the vast majority are diverted to law and order duties. Therefore, the actual ratio of police officers to the population is a meager 117 per 100,000 citizens (against the UN recommended standard of 222). Now, apply the structural hurdles: the "right to silence" and the statutory disbelief of police testimony. Add to this the massive burden of proving the complex ingredients of "criminal conspiracy" beyond a reasonable doubt. In such a resource-starved reality, the acquittal of our accused is not just unsurprising—it is almost inevitable.

Suppose our colonial past had been different; the fate of our actor might have been entirely different as well. Had France colonized us instead of the United Kingdom, we would have likely inherited the Civil Law tradition (the Inquisitorial model) rather than the present Adversarial system. Indeed, the sheer magnitude of our country’s size and population would have naturally fitted into such a Civil Law regime, rather than the rigid Common Law model. In that scenario, the 'right to silence' would not be an absolute shield. The actor could have been compelled to enter the witness box and face direct examination by the court in its active pursuit of the truth.

We are left with a fundamental contradiction: our investigations are conducted using an Inquisitorial method, yet the trial itself is strictly Adversarial. The police collect evidence and arrive at their findings through this process, but they must then place these materials before a court steeped in the Common Law tradition. There, within that adversarial regime, they are forced to prove complex offences like 'criminal conspiracy' beyond a reasonable doubt—often without the necessary tools to bridge the gap between their investigation and the court's strict standards.

With no materials on record to prove a counter-conspiracy, we must assume the system acted exactly as designed. If that be so, the accused actor likely stumbled before the police during the initial inquisitorial process—perhaps his answers were contradictory, or he was unable to explain his conduct—which explains why he found a place in the array of accused. However, the police could not collect sufficient reliable evidence to sustain this charge before the court. This failure, coupled with the influx of hostile witnesses, proved to be the game changer in favor of the actor.

The actor and his family should indeed be happy, for the judicial system played its part strictly by the rules. The tragedy, however, is that for the victim, the journey does not end with this verdict. That remains the saddest chapter of this story.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute legal advice. The analysis is intended for academic and legal debate regarding the systemic framework of criminal trials and does not intend to cast aspersions on the judicial verdict or any individual.