Pulsar Suni Approaches Kerala High Court Challenging Conviction & Sentence In 2017 Actress Assault Case

The Sessions Court has found him guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (outraging modesty), 354B (assault on woman with the intention to disrobe), 357 (assault), 366 (abduction) and 376D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Sessions Court had sentenced him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment. Fines aggregating to ₹5 lakh were imposed, directed to be paid to the survivor as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Malayalam actor Dileep, who was arrayed as the 8th accused, was acquitted by the Sessions Court, finding that the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy by the actor in the case.

Pulser Suni, in his appeal alleges grave procedural irregularities in the investigation, including delay and inconsistencies in the registration of the FIR, improper arrest, failure to conduct a valid test identification parade, and lapses in the collection and handling of biological and electronic evidence.

The appeal also challenges the reliance placed by the trial court on identification evidence, call data records, SIM card usage, and electronic materials, contending that these were either inadmissible, unreliable, or insufficiently corroborated.

“The prosecution case is false, fabricated, and the result of a motivated and one-sided investigation. The evidence on record is riddled with material contradictions, inconsistencies, and improbabilities, particularly with respect to the identification of A1, the alleged incident at PW5's residence, the Goa narrative, the SIM card and digital evidence, and the medical and forensic materials. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.” the plea states.

The appellant asserts that material contradictions in witness testimonies and defects in the prosecution case were overlooked, resulting in what he describes as a wrongful conviction.

The appellant has also moved an application seeking suspension of sentence, pointing out that he has already undergone nearly eight years of incarceration during investigation, trial, and post-conviction custody, amounting to more than one-third of the maximum sentence imposed.

Martin Antony, the second accused and Saleem H. @ Vadival Salim and Pradeep, the fifth and sixth accused in the case have also approached the High Court earlier challenging their conviction and sentence.

Case Title: Sunil N S @ Pulsar Suni

Case No: Crl. A 130/ 2026

Counsel for the Appellant: V V Pratheeksh Kurup