Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
One of the most discussed angles in the 2017 actor assault case, in which the trial court in Kochi recently announced the verdict, was the mention of a 'madam' who had allegedly 'ordered' the crime. In the detailed copy of the judgment, released by the court on December 12, it is alleged that the police had never investigated this line of conspiracy properly.
The verdict of the case came on December 8, acquitting the alleged mastermind and actor Dileep. Six men who were present on the scene, including the prime accused Pulsar Suni, were awarded the minimum sentence for conspiracy.
The court raised a question whether the "prosecution properly investigated the original motive claimed by Suni -- that he was acting on a quotation from a woman to capture nude visuals of the survivor."
The survivor had in her statements mentioned that Suni spoke of the 'quotation' (contract given for committing crime) as coming from a ‘madam’, and that she should know who her enemies are. But the court felt that these disclosures that came at the beginning of the case, were not investigated properly. The court has made many assertions about a woman named Sreelakshmi who was in constant touch with Suni. In this story, TNM will examine these assertions in the judgment.
Who is Sreelakshmi?
She is a married woman who was in a romantic relationship with Pulsar Suni. Sreelakshmi used three sim cards in 2017 and was constantly in touch with Suni. In the first stage of the investigation, Sreelakshmi was summoned by the police.
Now to look at what the court said in the judgement.
During the first course of investigation leading to the final report, no investigation is conducted into the [lady] aspect.
The first investigating officer of the case, DySP of Aluva KG Babukumar, had questioned Sreelakshmi and her husband several times, seized her phone and sent it to the Forensic Science Lab.
Upon examination of the phone records, including calls and messages, it was discovered that Suni was in constant touch with Sreelakshmi, and their relationship proved to be romantic in nature. This included texts in which Sreelakshmi would let Suni know when her husband would leave the apartment and so on. They had also exchanged intimate pictures.
On March 2, 2017, she was called in for questioning and she acknowledged her relationship including how they met and where they met.
Her statement said, “On the evening of 17.02.2017, at around 7.30 pm, Sunil called my number 8******550 and told me that he was in Aluva and was going for a good cause, and that I should not ask what it was because he would not tell me. After that, I received an SMS. On the morning of 18.02.2017 as well, I received an SMS.”
She further said that Suni deposited Rs 13,000 in her account on February 18. “The transfer stated it was for “running around.” As instructed by my husband, I transferred ₹13,000 back to him. I will produce my mobile phone. I have signed the mahazar prepared for the mobile phone.”
Babukumar filed a final report saying that Suni and others kidnapped and sexually assaulted the actor for purposes of blackmail and that other angles would be further probed.
Baiju Poulose, who later took charge of the investigation, had also spoken to Sreelakshmi during this initial phase of the probe and this has been mentioned in his deposition to the court.
“From speaking with her over the phone, it became clear that Suni and Sreelakshmi were lovers. No report regarding this has been produced before the court. During the period when Suni was absconding, I had contacted Sreelakshmi to obtain information about him,” the deposition said.
Sreelakshmi's husband who works as a chartered accountant in Chennai, told Asianet News on December 15, 2025 that the police had questioned them several times and Sreelakshmi's phone and sim card were handed over to them. He was reacting after several news reports questioned who Sreelakshmi was.
The phone has never been returned, he said. He corroborated his wife's statement that she had made Suni's acquaintance when he worked as a bus driver and they developed a friendship. Ahead of the crime, Suni had told Sreelakshmi about going to do something and asked her to pray for him, and she called him a few times to know what it was, said the husband. The police excluded them from further investigation after it became clear that they had no role in the crime, he claimed.
The judgement further said: Nothing is mentioned to rule out the conspiracy at the instance of a lady disclosed by Suni. She was not cited as a witness. Nothing is mentioned whether Babukumar or the Special Investigation Team conducted an investigation about the alleged quotation at the instance of a lady.
It is true that the first chargesheet and the supplementary reports did not specify that the police had investigated this link. Neither does it mention the discoveries the police made regarding Sreelakshmi and Suni.
Police officers claim that they did this to protect her privacy and after realising she had no links to the case. This was mentioned by Baiju Poulose in his deposition.
Advocate Sandhya Raju who practises in the Kerala High Court said, “The Investigation Officer is the master of the investigation at hand. He decides who is relevant and who is not. In this particular case this could have been important if he had not been arrested immediately. When during investigation no link can be found with respect to the crime then it’s fine I think. Not including her is not fatal. However, the reason that she was a married woman is not a valid excuse.”
Judgement says seven messages sent by Sreelakshmi to Suni on the night of February 17 were not retrieved. Sreelakshmi’s Call Data Record (CDR) was not given.
Investigators said that Suni had multiple phone numbers and they retrieved messages from a few of them. On one particular number, Sreelekshmi had sent messages till 1 pm on February 17, 2017, the night of the crime.
On another number she had sent messages till 4 am on February 17, but these too appear to be the intimate texts about the difficulties of carrying on an extramarital affair, declarations of love and so on.
However, the investigating team seems to not have been able to retrieve the content of messages from Suni’s number third number 9*******45. They only got the call and SMS records which again showed that Sreelakshmi sent him messages on the night of the crime.
While Suni’s call CDRs were submitted in court, including messages with Sreelakshmi, the police did not separately submit hers.
It is the lack of this CDR which the court has pointed out. However the court makes no mention of the other messages of a similar nature which were retrieved and submitted before it. The court however says, “Suni and Sreelakshmi were in a thick relationship."
“If the multiple calls and texts do not relate to the incident it’s their prerogative not to include. When evidence is being submitted it must be a full version, there cannot be cuts and additions. The issue is what would have the messages contained which were deleted and could not be extracted,” Sandhya Raju said.
Suni himself has had different versions over the years.
In August 2017, he told the media waiting outside the court, Suni said, “I have told Kavya’s name. She is my madam, no one else.”
In Suni's interviews to TNM (recorded in October 2024), he said that when the survivor asked him who had commissioned the crime, he told her it was a madam because he did not want her to think of Dileep. "We can’t reveal ‘our man,’ right? So I changed the gender for it to not go towards Dileepettan [elder brother, Dileep].” Suni told TNM.
Probing Kavya Madhavan’s role
In the second phase of the investigation of the ‘madam’ angle, the police had tried to trace the connection between Suni and actor Kavya Madhavan (the second wife of Dileep). In the early days of the investigation, after the mention of Kavya's boutique Laksyah cropped up, rumours rose over Kavya being the 'madam' in the case.
In their final chargesheet submitted to the court, the police said that though they have found that Kavya had knowledge of the crime before it was committed, they did not have enough evidence to corroborate it. Hence, she was not added as an accused in the case, but a witness.
The chargesheet said, “Although the investigation revealed that the 34th witness, Kavya Madhavan, had prior knowledge that the offence in this case would be committed, since no other evidence necessary to substantiate this was obtained, she was not arrayed as an accused in this case.”
Suni was also employed as Kavya's driver, at least once, according to another witness Renju Ranjimar, makeup artist and mutual friend of Kavya and the survivor.