Kerala: Judge Honey M Varghese’s trial amid immense pressure and controversies

KOCHI: A trial full of emotions, controversies, resignation of prosecutors and long lines of questions. The actress’s attack case was eventful. Only one person remained unmoved even under intense pressure. Ernakulam Principal Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese delivered the verdict in the case.local-body-polls-1.32 crore voters, 15,432 polling stations; Phase 1 polls in seven Kerala districts today

There were many attempts to sway the judge. Honey is the daughter of CPM state committee member and former Thrissur district secretary M.M. Varghese. There was also a campaign based on her family’s political inclination. Amidst the turmoil, it was the higher courts that became her pillar of support. The trial was completed after more than seven hundred days of sittings.On March 8, 2018, Justice Kauser Edappagath, who is now a High Court judge, began the trial. The case came to Honey on a petition filed by the victim at the High Court seeking that the case be shifted to a woman judge. At that time, Honey, who was an Additional Sessions Judge in the CBI Special Court, was the only woman judge in the trial courts of Ernakulam district. Later, she was promoted to Principal District Sessions Judge.During the trial, the victim actress approached the High Court again with a demand to change the judge. The victim alleged that the trial was biased and that the judge was in good bonhomie with Dileep. The actress complained that she had to cry several times in the courtroom. The prosecution also supported her demand. However, the High Court did not accept these arguments. The time limit given by the Supreme Court to complete the trial had also passed several times.There was also an incident where the special public prosecutors had a fallout during the secret trial. S Sureshan and V.N. Anilkumar were vacated. Adv V Ajakumar completed the prosecution arguments. Meanwhile, Honey M. Varghese courted controversy with a speech at a public function where she said it was not the prosecutor’s job to put in effort to ensure punishment for all the accused brought by the police. Honey indicated that if the accused is eligible for bail, the prosecutor should accept it.The survivor approached the Supreme Court with a complaint that the memory card, which is a crucial piece of evidence in the case, was illegally inspected while it was in the custody of the court. She shared her concerns that the attack footage would be leaked. The complaint was also submitted to the President.