2017 Actress Rape Case: Kerala High Court Reserves Orders On Sentence Suspension Pleas Of Two Convicts Sentenced To 20 Years

The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 17) heard the sentence suspension pleas of H. Saleem (A5) and C. Pradeep (A6), who were convicted in the 2017 Actress Rape case.

They were each awarded a 20-year term by the District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam in the verdict passed in December 2025.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar today heard detailed arguments advanced by Advocate K.V. Sabu appearing for Saleem and Pradeep, Special Public Prosecutor Aja Kumar on behalf of the State and Advocate Vrinda Grover, who appeared for the survivor.

After hearing the parties, the Bench orally said that it would pass orders on the petitions.

Last week, the Court had refused to suspend the sentence of prime accused Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni.

Contentions raised

The counsel appearing for Saleem and Pradeep contended that they did not commit abusive act and they cannot be compared with the prime accused or the other accused, who had active participation. They also argued that they were not present inside the vehicle when the offence occurred but had gotten down before the commission of the offence, even as per the prosecution case. They merely sat on either side of the survivor, did not do anything else.

The special public prosecutor argued that it is not relevant whether these accused committed the offence themselves since all the accused are jointly liable for the commission of the offence and conspiracy. He also pointed out that the survivor had said that they had no authority to enter into someone else's car and moreover, they did not permit her to move when they sat on her either side.

Justice Raja then clarified: "So you are saying that since he is a conspirator, even though he was not present therein, at the time of suspension of sentence, his category is similar to that of A1?"

The prosecutor then pointed out that the trial court had also found that their participation is almost equal.

Advocate Grover appearing for survivor argued that it is does not matter whether or not each of the accused committed the actual act but what is relevant is their common intention. She further pointed out that the survivor identified each of them in the TIP (Test Identification Parade) and CCTV footage also establish their presence. She added that the survivor also testified that she told them not to hurt her and the same is recorded in the evidence. 

She added that there is no alternate explanation on record pointing that these two men had no knowledge of the intention to commit abusive act. She also contended that for orchestrating this offence, the roles of each of the persons and conspirators were defined and critical. She further argued that their absence at the time of commission of the actual act does not give them alibi since all of them had defined roles to play and they were liable for the offence under S. 376D IPC, as found by the trial court.

Case Nos: Crl.A 2337/ 2025 and connected matters

Case Titles: Saleem H @ Vadival Salim v. State of Kerala and connected matters