Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Terming the acquittal of actor Dileep “unmerited and illegal,” the Kerala government on February 27 challenged the trial court’s verdict in the 2017 actor assault case before the Kerala High Court. The state has also sought enhancement of the sentence awarded to the six convicted men to life imprisonment.
On December 12, 2025, after an eight-year-long trial, Additional Special Sessions Court judge Honey Varghese in Ernakulam acquitted four accused men — including Dileep, who had been arraigned as the alleged “master conspirator.” Six others — prime accused Sunil NS alias Pulsar Suni, Martin Antony, Manikandan B, Vijeesh VP, Saleem @ Vadival Salim, and Pradeep — were sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for abducting and gang-raping the survivor.
According to the state’s appeal, the trial court examined the facts of the case “in a distorted and dissected manner” and applied different standards of evaluation to two sets of accused who faced trial for the same offences.
The crime took place on the night of February 17, 2017, when the survivor, a prominent female actor, was travelling from Thrissur to Kochi. The assailants confined her inside her vehicle and sexually assaulted her in the moving SUV while filming the act on a mobile phone. The visuals, recorded by Pulsar Suni, later became a central piece of evidence in the case.
While the trial court held that the abduction, assault and recording of visuals had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the personal motive of the six men who carried out the attack. Dileep and three others — Charly Thomas, Sanil Kumar and Sharath G Nair — who had been charged with criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence, were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement.
In its appeal, the state argued that the trial court caused a “substantial miscarriage of justice” by separating the alleged role of the mastermind from that of the perpetrators who executed the crime. According to the prosecution, the conspiracy unfolded in multiple stages and formed a continuous chain that began with the alleged commissioning of the crime and culminated in the assault carried out by the gang.
Investigators alleged that Dileep had entered into a criminal agreement with prime accused Pulsar Suni in 2016, offering him a Rs 1.5 crore “quotation” to execute the crime. They claimed that Suni and his associates had no personal enmity toward the survivor and were motivated solely by the promised financial reward.
The state further argued that the motive for the crime lay in Dileep’s hostility toward the survivor, whom he believed had revealed his extra-marital relationship to his then wife. According to investigators, this disclosure contributed to the breakdown of his marriage and led to deep-seated resentment toward the survivor, which ultimately formed the basis of the alleged conspiracy.
On March 11, the Kerala High Court issued notices to Dileep and the other accused, seeking their response to the state’s appeal.
‘Three-stage conspiracy’
In its appeal, the prosecution said the alleged conspiracy unfolded in three interconnected stages.
The first was the “primary conspiracy,” allegedly hatched between Dileep and prime accused Pulsar Suni in 2013. According to investigators, Dileep offered Suni a Rs 1.5 crore “quotation” to abduct the survivor and record her sexual assault.
The second stage involved the execution of the crime on February 17, 2017, when Suni and his associates intercepted the survivor’s vehicle and recorded the assault.
The third stage, the prosecution argued, unfolded after the crime was reported, when Suni attempted to collect the promised payment. Investigators said this phase involved efforts from jail to contact Dileep and his associates and reiterate the demand for the remaining money, which the state says further demonstrated the existence of the earlier agreement.
The appeal contends that the trial court erred by assessing each stage in isolation rather than as part of a single, continuing conspiracy. By separating the actions of the perpetrators from the alleged role of the conspirators, the state argues, the court effectively “dissected” a unified chain of events and arrived at an erroneous acquittal.
Trial court’s reasoning challenged
The State’s appeal argues that the trial court failed to properly appreciate several strands of evidence that pointed to the existence of a wider conspiracy. It contends that the court adopted an “unduly narrow approach” to circumstantial evidence and placed an excessively high burden of proof on the prosecution while assessing the alleged role of actor Dileep.
According to the appeal, the trial court dismissed several pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution. These included alleged conspiratorial meetings between Dileep and prime accused Sunil NS alias Pulsar Suni, a handwritten letter sent from jail by Suni seeking money from Dileep, witness accounts regarding visits to Laksyah boutique — owned by Dileep’s wife — and testimony by filmmaker Balachandrakumar, who claimed to have seen the assault visuals being viewed at Dileep’s residence. The court ruled that these claims lacked reliable corroboration.
In particular, the court held that Balachandrakumar was not a “sterling witness,” citing inconsistencies in his testimony and discrepancies in the digital records he produced. It also found that forensic evidence did not establish any communication or digital link between Dileep and the assault.
The appeal disputes this assessment, describing Balachandrakumar as a credible witness whose statements were corroborated by digital records and other evidence gathered during the investigation.
The State further argues that the trial court overlooked circumstances that, taken together, suggested coordination between the perpetrators and the alleged conspirators. By assessing each piece of evidence in isolation rather than as part of a broader pattern, the appeal claims, the court arrived at conclusions inconsistent with the overall chain of events presented by the prosecution.
Questions over digital evidence
The appeal also raises concerns about how the trial court interpreted forensic evidence related to the assault visuals recorded on a mobile phone. According to the State, the court failed to adequately consider findings suggesting that the memory card containing the footage had been accessed multiple times while it was in judicial custody.
Investigators pointed to the creation of system-generated folders typically associated with mobile gallery applications, which they said indicated that the files had been opened on smartphones. The prosecution argues that this suggested the visuals were viewed without authorisation, raising concerns about the handling of the digital evidence.
The trial court, however, concluded that the survivor’s privacy had not been compromised because the hash values of the video files remained unchanged, indicating that the files themselves had not been altered.
The State disputes this reasoning in its appeal, arguing that informational privacy is violated the moment such material is accessed without consent, regardless of whether the underlying files are modified.
Remarks against investigation
The State has also challenged several observations made by the trial court against the investigation team. In its appeal, the prosecution argues that remarks in the judgment casting doubt on the credibility of investigators and prosecution witnesses were “unwarranted and unsupported by evidence.”
It requested the High Court to expunge "sweeping and stigmatic" remarks made by the trial judge against the Investigating Officer Baiju Poulose, whose integrity was questioned in the final verdict.
During the trial, the court had raised concerns about aspects of the investigation and described some prosecution witnesses as unreliable, while also expressing reservations about the probe led by Baiju Poulose. The State now contends that these observations lacked adequate basis and risk unfairly undermining the credibility of the investigation.
The appeal therefore seeks to have several of these remarks expunged, arguing that they were unnecessary for deciding the issues before the court and could have wider implications for the officials involved. The State maintains that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the law and that the evidence collected during the probe was sufficient to establish the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution.
State seeks harsher punishment
Apart from challenging the acquittals, the State has also questioned the 20-year sentences awarded to Pulsar Suni and his five accomplices, describing them as “disproportionate and inadequate.” Calling the assault a cruel act of “terror” allegedly executed for financial gain, the prosecution has sought the maximum punishment of life imprisonment for the convicted men.
In its appeal, the State argues that the sentence is “grossly inadequate” considering the gravity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was carried out. It contends that the assault was not a spontaneous act but a carefully planned offence allegedly committed for financial gain, warranting the imposition of life imprisonment.
The appeal therefore urges the High Court to reconsider the punishment awarded to the convicted accused, including prime accused Pulsar Suni, and impose a stricter sentence in line with the seriousness of the offence.
The State has also filed an application seeking to excuse a 17-day delay in filing the appeal for enhancement of sentence. Prosecutors told the court that additional time was required to examine the voluminous trial records and the detailed judgment before finalising the grounds of challenge.
According to the application, the trial court’s verdict runs to more than 1,700 pages and the case involved the examination of over 260 witnesses, along with a large number of documents and material objects. The prosecution said the delay occurred while reviewing these records and preparing the appeal.
The State has requested the High Court of Kerala to condone the delay and consider the appeal on its merits. The court will first decide whether to allow the appeal to proceed against the acquittal of Dileep and the other accused, before proceeding to hear the matter in detail.