Kochi: Lakshadweep filmmaker Ayesha Sulthana refuted in the Kerala High Court, allegations of the island administration that she was not cooperating with the probe in the sedition case against her, claiming that the authority was in a hurry to make her look like an 'anti- national'. The Lakshadweep Administration, in its recent reply opposing Sulthana's plea to quash the FIR against her, had contended that the filmmaker was not cooperating with the investigation, had erased details of various communications from her mobile phone after lodging of the case and refused to provide documents sought by the police.
Responding to the allegations of the administration, the filmmaker - represented by advocate KA Akbar - has claimed that she had not deleted any material from her phone which was seized by the police without any prior information or direction regarding the same. She has further claimed that after seizing her phone and her brother's laptop on June 25, the devices were not produced before the trial court till July 15 and she is not aware in whose custody it was all that time.
Read:Lakshadweep police quiz Ayesha Sulthana again, seize laptop
"The allegation that on scrutiny of the mobile phone of the petitioner (Sulthana), some media files and chat history of social media platforms were found deleted is utter falsehood. The petitioner has not deleted any chats from her social media or any other internet-based platforms. The allegation that text messages were deleted is false," the reply said. It further stated that the non-production of the electronic devices was with the intention "to insert false evidence" against her.
"Since the chain of custody is lost, the prosecutions intention is very clear. They will tamper with the mobile phone..," she has alleged and has added that both devices have been sent to a forensic lab in Gujarat, instead of labs in Hyderabad, Chennai or Kerala as per the prevalent practice. "The prosecution deliberately circumvented the chain of custody of both electronic devices seized in this case which provided an opportunity for them to install any material according to their whims and fancies, which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner," she said in her reply.