Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Eight years after a prominent Malayalam actor was abducted and sexually assaulted in a moving vehicle, the case has come to signify much more than the crime itself. It is now one of the most closely watched trials in Kerala — not only for what the survivor endured, but for what the prosecution claims unfolded behind the scenes of the assault. At the centre of that claim is Malayalam actor Dileep, named as the alleged conspirator who planned the attack, even as the man accused of carrying it out faces trial for the violence itself.
To understand the prosecution’s case against Dileep, it is essential to examine three things it has tried to establish — the motive it attributes to him, the links it says it uncovered between him and the prime accused, and the steps it alleges he took to hide his tracks after the assault. Here is a breakdown.
The motive
The prosecution’s theory of motive rests on a deeply personal fallout that, it argues, gradually turned into retaliation.
According to investigators, Dileep believed that in 2012 it was the survivor who revealed his affair with actor Kavya Madhavan to his then-wife, Manju Warrier. That belief, the prosecution says, became the source of his anger towards the survivor and set off a chain of retaliatory actions, including professional isolation and public humiliation of the survivor, and finally, the alleged conspiracy to abduct and assault her.
The motive argument is primarily built on the depositions of Manju Warrier, the survivor, and filmmaker Geetu Mohandas.
Manju told the court that in February 2012, she discovered private messages between Dileep and Kavya on an old phone of his. Distressed and seeking clarity, she reached out through friends and was led to the survivor. On February 14 that year, Manju, Geetu, and actor Samyuktha Varma went to the survivor’s home in Thrissur. Manju testified that she broke down there and sought answers. The survivor later told the court that after initial hesitation, and at her father’s urging, she shared limited information about what she knew. She also said she informed both Dileep and Kavya about the conversation soon after.
After this, Manju told the court, Dileep insisted that the survivor had misled her. It was this belief, she said, that hardened into lasting resentment.
The survivor’s account traces what followed in its wake. She testified that Dileep became openly hostile towards her, blamed her for the collapse of his marriage, and used his clout within the industry to squeeze her out of work. She spoke of losing roles, being socially isolated, and being pressured to “deny” what she had told Manju in return for film offers, which she refused.
Geetu Mohandas corroborated both the 2012 visit and its impact, telling the court that it was during that meeting that the “extent of the intimacy” between Dileep and Kavya became clear.
The prosecution also relies heavily on what happened during the 2013 rehearsal camp for the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (A.M.M.A.) stage show Mazhavillazhakil Amma at Kochi’s Abad Plaza.
The survivor told the court that at the camp, several actors confronted her over the alleged disclosure about Dileep and Kavya. Actor Siddique, she said, scolded her and warned her not to repeat such matters, and she was told that Dileep was extremely angry with her. She described being isolated and humiliated at the camp.
Geetu Mohandas confirmed that the survivor later told her she had been “terribly isolated” during the rehearsals.
Make-up artist Renju Renjimar, examined as a prosecution witness, testified that while working at the Abad Plaza camp, the survivor came to her crying and said Siddique had shouted at her over the discussion regarding Dileep and Kavya. Renju said she and actor Ramya Nambeesan tried to comfort her.
It is this alleged resentment from Dileep, prosecutors argue, that matured into the motive for the 2017 crime.
The ‘quotation’
Beyond motive, the prosecution’s most crucial claim is that the assault itself was executed as a paid ‘quotation’ (contract crime) commissioned by Dileep and carried out by the prime accused and petty criminal Pulsar Suni.
Suni initially concealed the identity of the person who hired him, which the prosecution says is a pattern common in contract crimes. But later disclosures, witness testimonies, digital records, and a handwritten demand letter from Suni in jail have been used to argue that Dileep was the ultimate conspirator.
The earliest reference to the attack being a hired crime came from the survivor herself.
In her first information statement and her Section 164 CrPC deposition, the survivor told the court that Suni explicitly said he had received a “quotation” to record her naked videos and that he would “get into trouble” if he failed to deliver. He also told her that those who hired him would call her after 10 am the next day to handle the rest of the dealings.
She said Suni threatened to keep recording repeatedly if she showed distress, and alleged that an injection had been procured to sedate her.
The prosecution also points to the forensic transcript of the assault video, in which Suni is heard telling her that if she continued crying, he would record “again.” Prosecutors argue that this shows the recording was not incidental, but central to the contract.
The payment trail
Two key approvers in the case, Vipinlal and Vishnu Aravind, who were also Suni’s jailmates, have deposed on the existence of and money involved in the alleged quotation.
According to police, Vishnu was the one who arranged a mobile phone for Suni to call Dileep from jail. He also reportedly handed over a letter written by Suni to Dileep's manager. It was through this letter that the police first linked Dileep with the case.
Vipinlal told the court that while in jail, Suni said the contract amount would be collected after he secured bail, but that he later decided to surrender first due to pressure from co-accused Vijeesh, and then meet Dileep after release to collect the money.
According to Vishnu’s testimony, Suni directly informed him that the assault and recording were carried out as per the quotation given by Dileep, that only an advance had been paid, and that the total contract amount was Rs 1.5 crore, which would rise to Rs 3 crore if a case was registered.
The meetings before the crime
Dileep has consistently denied knowing Pulsar Suni. The prosecution, however, relies on a series of physical meetings and sightings between 2016 and early 2017 to argue the opposite.
Among the most significant is the testimony of director Balachandrakumar, who told the court that on December 26, 2016, he saw Suni at Dileep’s residence, ‘Padmasarovaram’. He described travelling with Suni in the same car, observing a packet of cash in his hand, and later recognising him from news reports after the assault.
Balachandrakumar’s presence at the house, the prosecution says, is corroborated by selfies taken at the house that day, WhatsApp chats between Balachandrakumar and Dileep’s brother Anoop confirming the visit, and Suni’s own admission under Section 313 CrPC.
Balachandrakumar also testified that when he later confronted Dileep about this meeting, Dileep denied knowing Suni.
Another major cluster of evidence centres on November 13 and 14, 2016, during the shooting of Georgettan’s Pooram in Thrissur and Thodupuzha. Caravan driver Sunesh, groundsman Vasudevan, and multiple crew members told the court they saw Suni near Dileep’s caravan at the Thrissur Tennis Club. Phone location data and selfies taken by fans that day are used to corroborate their presence at the same venue.
The prosecution further claims that Suni met Dileep again at Santhigiri College on November 14, based on call data records and a route map allegedly written by Suni himself.
After the failed Goa attempt
The prosecution alleges that an initial attempt to execute the crime in Goa in early January 2017 failed, after which Suni regrouped in Kerala.
Make-up artist Renju Renjimar told the court that she saw Suni near Dileep’s house again in the first week of January 2017, which prosecutors argue indicates that Suni reported the failure and renewed the plan.
Investigators also claim that Suni later arranged for co-accused Martin to be planted as a driver at Lal Media to track the survivor’s movements for the second attempt in Ernakulam.
The jail letter demanding money
One of the prosecution’s most cited documents is the handwritten letter allegedly sent by Suni to Dileep from jail on April 12, 2017.
In this letter, Suni seeks payment of the balance amount, reminding Dileep that he had not disclosed his involvement to anyone and claiming that he had “kept the elder brother safe.”
The prosecution argues that this letter is corroborated by recorded phone calls retrieved from the devices of Dileep, his manager Appunni, and close friend and director Nadirsha, and Dileep’s own police complaint, in which he acknowledges that Vishnu approached him seeking money on Suni’s behalf.
Was money already paid?
The prosecution’s case is that the alleged financia arrangement between Dileep and Pulsar Suni began well before the assault.
Investigators say the first payment was made nearly a year before the crime, during a meeting at Joy’s Palace Hotel in Thrissur on November 1, 2015. Based on disclosures made by Suni and documentary evidence, the prosecution claims Suni met Dileep in the hotel’s parking area, after entering his motorcycle and phone details in the gate register, and received Rs 10,000 inside Dileep’s BMW. This meeting is also linked to a Rs 1 lakh cash withdrawal made the previous day (October 31, 2015) from Grand Productions, the company owned by Dileep. Two days later, on November 2, Rs 1 lakh was deposited into the bank account of Suni’s mother.
Though she denied knowledge of the deposit, Suni admitted in court that the account belonged to her. Dileep has offered no explanation for the withdrawal. The prosecution also relies on Dileep’s own disclosure statement, in which he led investigators to the exact Joy’s Palace parking spot — a fact they say was known only to him and Suni.
Investigators further claim that Rs 30,000 was paid again to Suni in September 2016, this time through Nadirsha, during the shooting of Kattappanayile Ritwik Roshan at Thodupuzha. Call records, lodge registers, and crew testimonies, including that of driver Jemsith, are cited to place both Suni and Nadirsha at the shooting location on the same day. Suni later admitted to collecting this money. The prosecution says these payments together form the financial backbone of the alleged “quotation.”
The alleged fake alibi
The prosecution further argues that Dileep began constructing a false alibi almost immediately after the assault on February 17, 2017. Call data records show his phone was switched off for hours during the crucial period and was reactivated only after 10.30 pm, which investigators call highly unusual.
In the days that followed, Dileep publicly claimed he had been dealing with hospital matters and suggested he had been admitted at Anwar Hospital. But prosecutors say this hospitalisation was entirely fabricated. They allege that on February 22, five days after the crime, Dr Hyderali instructed staff nurse Remya Shaiju to prepare an in-patient chart retroactively showing Dileep as admitted from February 14 to 21. The admission register, however, had no entry for him. The nurse was not even on duty on one of the days she supposedly made entries, and she later told the court the chart was not based on any actual admission. A 59-second call between Dileep and the doctor that afternoon, investigators say, points to direct coordination.
The prosecution further claims the fake alibi was designed to mask proximity to the crime scene. While Dileep’s phone was switched off, his close aide Appunni’s phone was traced near the abduction spot and showed contact with both Dileep’s sister’s number and Dr Hyderali, which led investigators to argue that Dileep himself may have used that phone to call the doctor.
Later messages suggesting he had “been discharged from hospital”, long late-night calls inconsistent with serious illness, and a 2021 SMS from his brother-in-law to a lawyer just before the nurse’s deposition are all cited as part of an alleged pattern of witness management.
Dileep has denied wrongdoing, but the prosecution frames the hospital records as a deliberately planted shield to mislead investigators if his movements on February 17 ever came under scrutiny.
Suppressed jail calls
The prosecution also argues that Dileep’s conduct after Pulsar Suni’s arrest exposes a deliberate attempt to suppress crucial information that could have directly linked him to the crime.
Despite publicly declaring on February 22, 2017, that he did not know any of the accused, Dileep allegedly failed to report repeated calls made from jail by Suni on April 10, 2017. The prosecution says that after these calls, director Nadirsha immediately contacted Dileep, and the two discussed the implications of Suni’s demands for money. Even after this, another call from Suni followed, yet neither Dileep nor Nadirsha alerted the police.
Instead, investigators point to a single 13-second call made by Dileep to the State Police Chief as a token gesture meant to create a defensive record. Crucially, in the formal complaint Dileep later submitted to the police, he mentioned only calls from Vishnu, not the jail calls from Suni, which the prosecution says was a deliberate suppression. If the jail calls had truly been reported, investigators argue, the illegal phone inside prison would have been seized immediately. That never happened.
The prosecution also relies on recorded conversations to argue that Dileep’s inner circle actively tried to shape a favourable narrative after being caught off guard by these calls. In one such recording, Nadirsha is heard probing Vishnu while pretending ignorance about Suni’s identity, even though he was fully aware the calls were coming from jail — a fact the prosecution says could only have reached him through Dileep.
Further, voice recordings later seized from director Balachandrakumar’s phone were independently authenticated when Dileep’s own associates, Sajith Gibran and Suraj, were intercepted in 2021 admitting that Balachandrakumar had secretly recorded them, without disputing the content itself.
The major gaps
The prosecution, however, also carries some serious evidentiary gaps — the most crucial missing link being the original mobile phone used to record the sexual assault.
While the prosecution relies on a memory card that later surfaced, it has not been able to recover the primary device on which the recording was allegedly made. Closely tied to this is the prosecution’s claim that the memory card was later handed over in Laksyah, the boutique owned by Dileep’s wife Kavya. Investigators, however, have no concrete evidence of whom it was handed to or who received it, especially with witnesses turning hostile.
The financial trail, too, remains limited. Beyond the Rs 1 lakh deposit that appeared in Suni’s mother’s account in November 2015, and the alleged smaller cash exchanges claimed through witnesses, the prosecution has no comprehensive documentary proof of the full quotation amount changing hands.
Finally, the prosecution has also been unable to produce the Samsung tablet used by Balachandrakumar to record the voice clips that later became central to the alleged post-crime cover-up narrative. The prosecution, however, has sought to authenticate them through other digital sources.