Kochi, Jan 12 (NationPress) The Kerala court, addressing the actress assault case, issued a scathing critique of advocate T.B. Mini, the survivor's lawyer, on Monday, questioning her engagement and presence throughout the trial proceedings.

The trial court, which handled the notorious actress abduction incident from February 2017, recently convicted and sentenced six individuals while acquitting four others, including well-known actor Dileep.

On Monday, the court remarked that the actress's attorney attended for merely ten days throughout the trial, often being present for less than thirty minutes each time.

The judge, while reviewing contempt of court motions, commented that the courtroom seemed to be utilized as a space for relaxation rather than a venue for serious legal discussions.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that during her sporadic appearances, the lawyer was frequently observed dozing off, yet later alleged that the court had failed to consider her arguments.

These comments arise amid ongoing disputes regarding the ruling in this widely publicized case concerning the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault of an actress on February 17, 2017.

The prosecution's case claimed that the survivor was abducted after her vehicle was stopped near Athani in Angamaly, sexually assaulted, and recorded in compromising visuals.

In its ruling, the trial court acquitted actor Dileep, asserting that the charges of criminal conspiracy and evidence tampering were not substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt.

In response to the verdict, advocate Mini publicly criticized the court, particularly challenging the assertion that the prosecution did not present compelling evidence, labeling such conclusions as erroneous.

Meanwhile, the state government has sought legal counsel, recommending that an appeal be lodged with the Kerala High Court.

The Special Public Prosecutor's assessment indicates that the trial court's decision cannot be wholly accepted and that the acquittals of Dileep and the other accused require appellate review.

The legal opinion further highlights that the sentences given to the convicted individuals were merely the minimum allowed and argues that the trial court's dismissal of key evidence against Dileep is legally indefensible.

It also points to various sections of the extensive judgment, suggesting that unnecessary justifications appeared to favor the accused.

Stressing the importance of ensuring justice in a case that has captivated national attention, the prosecution has emphasized the necessity for intervention by the higher judiciary to correct the perceived shortcomings in the trial court's conclusions.