2017 Actress Assault Case: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Pulsar Suni's Sentence Suspension Plea

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 9) reserved its verdict in the sentence suspension plea filed by Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni, who was convicted by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in the 2017 Actress Assault case.

Suni, who was arrayed as the prime accused (A1), has been sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar today heard detailed arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar appearing for Suni as well as the Special Public Prosecutor V. Aja Kumar and Advocate Vrinda Grover for the survivor.

The Court orally said that it would hear the sentence suspension plea of the other convicts at a later date: "We will pass orders in the first accused's. Others have asked for time. So we will post the matter after some time and after passing orders so far as the first accused is concerned, then we will hear other applications."

Arguments advanced on behalf of Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni

Senior Advocate Ajithkumar pointed out that Suni had undergone incarceration for 8.5 years, which is a substantial part of the sentence awarded to him. He submitted that Suni was arrested just 5 days after the registration of the crime in February 2017 and was granted bail only in 2024. Adding up the same with period of incarceration subsequent to pronouncement of sentence, 8 ½ years have already been served, he submitted.

Ajithkumar further argued that with the conspiracy charges being dismissed and the acquittal of actor Dileep (arrayed as A8 in the crime), a huge part of the prosecution case has been demolished. Since the prosecution alleges that the crime was a quotation crime and that Suni was contracted by A8 Dileep, who is the only person alleged to have had a motive, Dileep's acquittal leaves no motive remaining, he argued.

It was further pointed out that the volume of witness statements, exhibits and Material Objects (MOs) to be examined is large. He added that it would take a long time to hear and dispose of the appeals, which included not only the convicts' appeals but also the State appeal challenging acquittal of four accused and seeking enhancement of sentence for the convicts.

Another aspect that he has pointed out is that since the matter is at the appellate stage, the prosecution would not be affected by the suspension of sentence, unlike in a case where trial is pending and there is likelihood of witnesses being influenced. It was also contended that Suni did not affect the prosecution case while he was on bail during the trial stage and the only offence he was involved in was a dispute with a tea vendor for a crime that is not of a similar nature.

He concluded by saying that the media hype created in the case, the status of the parties, etc. should not be aspects which the Court considers while deciding suspension of sentence.

Contentions made by Advocate Vrinda Grover for survivor

Advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for the survivor submitted that she will also be filing an appeal in the case.

Advocate Grover submitted that the crime was a diabolical one since it is of continuous nature owing to the gang rape being videographed and copied to memory cards. Relying on three judgments, it was argued that the parameters for suspension of sentence after conviction are distinct from those applicable at the bail stage. It was pointed out that the presumption of innocence no longer attaches as there is a conviction.

She contended that the aspects to be considered are whether there is any cogent ground disclosed or any substantial doubt to suspect the conviction; whether there is a fair chance of acquittal and also whether there are any lacunae.

Further, it was pointed out that the conviction was passed after a rigorous trial with multiple witnesses and numerous evidence, including electronic evidence. She stressed that half the sentence imposed has not been undergone in the present case and that this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

She also submitted that this was a crime that has shocked the conscience of the society.

Arguments made by Special Public Prosecutor

The special public prosecutor vehemently opposed the sentence suspension plea. He submitted that Suni was granted bail on stringent conditions and within one week itself, he committed another offence. It was also pointed out that one of the conditions imposed was that he ought not discuss about the crime. However, it was violated when he made public disclosure admitting his role in the crime and stating that it was quotation crime.

The prosecutor further contended that only the minimum sentence was granted to the convicts in the case and when State appeal challenging acquittal of conspirators and seeking enhancement is pending, the sentence suspension aspect has to be considered in a different manner.

He also pointed out the statutory mandate that appeals in offences of gang rape must be heard within 6 months and submitted that the State is ready to argue the appeal immediately. Further, the trial court had already set off the period undergone, he added.

He countered the contention that there is no other earning member in Suni's family by stating that his mother and his sister are earning. The likelihood of absconding was also mentioned.

He further contended that the memory card in which the visuals of the offence was captured was copied and the investigation into the same is not yet completed. 

Background

Presently, the appeals preferred by the convicts challenging their conviction and sentences as well as the State's appeal seeking enhancement of punishment to the convicts and challenging the acquittal of Dileep and three others are pending before the High Court. All the appeals have been admitted.

Last time, the Court had called for the trial court records in the case to consider the sentence suspension pleas of the convicts.

Apart from Dileep, who is Accused No. 8, the State has also challenged the acquittal of accused Nos. 7 Charly Thomas, 9 Sanilkumar @ Mesthiri Sanil and 15 Sarath G. Nair, who are accused of entering into criminal conspiracy to commit the crime.

In December, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, had sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni, to 20 years of imprisonment.

It had acquitted prominent Malayalam actor Dileep, who was accused of orchestrating the whole crime. The Sessions Court had held that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy by Dileep in the case.

Pulsar Suni (A1), Martin Antony (A2), B Manikandan (A3), V.P. Vijeesh (A4), H. Saleem (A5), C. Pradeep (A 6) were convicted of rape, conspiracy, abduction and other offences.

Case Nos: Crl.A 295/ 2026 and connected cases

Case Titles: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni and Ors. and connected cases