2017 Actress Assault Case: Kerala Govt Moves High Court Against Acquittal Of Actor Dileep, Three Others

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.

For context the trial court had convicted accused Nos. 1 to 6– Pulsar Suni (A1), Martin Antony (A2), B Manikandan (A3), V.P. Vijeesh (A4), H. Saleem (A5), C. Pradeep (A 6)–for offences section 120 B(criminal conspiracy), 340(wrongful confinement), 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 366(kidnapping), 354B(Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) and 376D(gang rape) IPC.

They were sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for gang rape, with additional concurrent sentences for allied offences. The court had directed that ₹5 lakh from the fine amount be paid to the survivor as compensation.

In its appeal before the High Court the State has sought enhancement of sentence for accused no. 1-6, contending that the punishment awarded is inadequate given the gravity and societal impact of the crime.

Meanwhile the Sessions Court acquitted Charly Thomas of harbouring offenders and acquitted Dileep of all charges. Sanil Kumar and Sarath Nair were also acquitted of charges including conspiracy, abetment, and destruction of evidence.

In its appeal, the State contends that the acquittals are illegal and unsustainable, arguing that the trial court failed to conduct a holistic evaluation of the evidence regarding the alleged larger conspiracy. The prosecution maintains that the evidence on record establishes a primary conspiracy between A8 and A1 dating back to 2013, motivated by personal enmity against the survivor, and that the subsequent actions of A1 to A6 were in furtherance of that conspiracy.

The appeal further challenges certain adverse observations made by the trial court against the investigation team, asserting that the Special Investigation Team conducted a comprehensive and fair probe. The State argues that defects, if any, in investigation cannot be grounds for acquittal in the absence of demonstrable prejudice.

Case Title: State of Kerala v Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni and Ors.