Kerala actress assault case: Pulsar Suni, 5 others get 20-year prison sentence

The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court on Friday sentenced six men convicted in the 2017 Kochi actress assault case to rigorous imprisonment, marking the latest development in a trial that has remained in the public eye for nearly eight years.

The sentencing came four days after the same court acquitted actor Dileep and three other co-accused of conspiracy charges.

20 years of rigorous imprisonment

Judge Honey M. Varghese awarded 20 years of rigorous imprisonment to Sunil N.S. alias Pulsar Suni, Martin Antony, Manikandan B., Vijesh V.P., Salim H., and Pradeep, after holding them guilty of offences related to kidnapping, wrongful confinement, sexual assault and recording the crime on a mobile phone.

Also Read: Dileep acquitted in sexual assault case: Timeline of 8-year-long legal battle

“This case has drawn significant public attention, but the court must remember that its sensational nature cannot influence the sentencing process. A court must balance justice for society and for the offender, taking into account the criminal background, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the objectives of punishment. Sentencing cannot be swayed by any form of sensationalism,” the court observed.

Prosecution seeks maximum punishment

Arguments on sentencing were heard throughout the day. The prosecution sought the maximum punishment permissible, asserting that the crime was grave, deliberate and carried long-term consequences for the survivor. It also opposed Dileep’s application seeking the return of his passport, submitted after his acquittal on December 8.

“As far as the sentencing is concerned, it is disappointing. This is only the minimum sentence mandated by the Parliament of India and not an act of generosity by the court. This is not a failure of the prosecution. We placed the entire case before the court and sought the maximum punishment. We will take the matter to the appropriate forum, and the government will decide on the appeal. We have already made it clear that an appeal will be filed in the higher court against the acquittal of the other accused,” said Special Public Prosecutor Advocate Ajakumar.

Also Read: Actress sexual assault case: MP Adoor Prakash clarifies 'Dileep got justice' remark

“However, there has been no failure on the part of the prosecution. Those directly involved in the crime have been punished. As for the nature of appeal, we will take a decision after receiving and examining the full judgment,” said Law Minister P. Rajeev.

The defence presented personal circumstances of the convicts in mitigation. Pulsar Suni said he was the sole support for his mother. Martin Antony claimed he had been in custody for several years and maintained that he had no previous criminal record. Manikandan, Salim and Pradeep cited family responsibilities. Vijesh requested that he be lodged in Kannur jail as he belonged to that district.

Judge warns against misreporting

Judge Varghese, while pronouncing the sentence, remarked that reports and discussions circulating outside the courtroom had no bearing on the judicial process and cautioned against misreporting. She said the decorum of the court must be maintained and warned that violations would invite strict action.

The sentencing follows the court’s verdict on December 8, acquitting four accused, including actor Dileep, after finding that the prosecution had not proved the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence established the role of the six convicted men who carried out the assault, but did not support the charge that Dileep had orchestrated it.

How it started

The case stems from the incident on February 17, 2017, when the survivor, a prominent Malayalam actress, was allegedly abducted in a vehicle near Kochi and sexually assaulted while being filmed. The crime led to a police investigation that resulted in the arrest of Pulsar Suni and others, followed by a supplementary charge sheet naming Dileep as a conspirator.

Also Read: Actress assault case: Dileep blames Manju Warrier's statement for conspiracy

The proceedings have gone through multiple stages over the years, including the transfer of the case to the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court and detailed examination of digital evidence, witness statements and forensic material.

Friday’s sentencing concludes the trial phase for the six convicted men. Copies of the final judgment, including reasons for the acquittals and the sentence, are expected to be made available to the parties. The prosecution has stated that it will examine the judgment in detail before deciding on further steps.

Four acquittals spark criticism

The acquittal of four accused, including Dileep, set off intense public criticism and revived long-standing concerns about how the trial had unfolded. From the outset, the survivor had requested that the case be handled by a woman judge, a demand the court accepted before appointing the present presiding officer.

In-camera proceedings were mandatory given the nature of the offence, and the survivor initially sought that protection as well. But as the trial progressed and cross-examination grew increasingly hostile, she later conveyed that she was willing for the proceedings to be held in open court, reflecting her discomfort with how the closed-door hearings were unfolding.

Also Read: Dileep verdict closes a long chapter, but closure and justice elude survivor

These tensions were compounded by wider public debates on whether the prosecution had received a fair chance, and whether the atmosphere within the courtroom had become adversarial in ways that undermined the survivor’s confidence in the process. In the days around the verdict, extensive profiles of Judge Honey M. Varghese resurfaced in the media, highlighting her family background and early political involvement. While none of this had any formal bearing on the judicial process, it added fuel to an already polarised discussion.

What the judge said

Amid this backdrop, while hearing arguments on the quantum of punishment, the judge herself addressed the escalating commentary. She told the media that they were free to scrutinise her past or professional journey, but reminded them that the dignity and decorum of the court must not be compromised. Any attempt to breach courtroom discipline or undermine the judicial process, she warned, would be met with strict action.

This mix of courtroom dynamics, public scrutiny and the survivor’s shifting sense of security within the process framed much of the criticism that followed the verdict, especially among those who felt that justice had not been fully realised.

Prosecution's plea

The prosecution pressed for the harshest punishment permissible under the law, maintaining that all six convicted individuals should receive sentences for each of the charges that the court has found proven. Prosecutors emphasised that the gravity of the offences, the premeditated nature of the conspiracy, and the prolonged impact on the survivor warranted nothing less than the maximum penalty.

Also Read: 2017 actress assault case: Kerala HC declines to cancel actor Dileep's bail

They also strongly opposed Dileep’s application seeking the return of his passport, arguing that allowing him access to the document could hinder the ongoing legal process, including the State’s decision on whether to appeal. The prosecution contended that given the seriousness of the case and the possibility of further proceedings, the conditions imposed on the convicts should not be relaxed at this stage.

What the accused pleaded

During the hearing on sentencing, the accused highlighted personal and family hardships in an attempt to seek leniency from the court. Pulsar Suni told the court that he has only his ageing mother to look after him and that she would be left completely alone if he were to receive a long prison term. Martin reiterated that he was innocent and pleaded that the court take his circumstances into account. Other accused also submitted details of their family situations, underscoring the difficulties their imprisonment would cause at home.

Vijesh requested that, if sentenced, he be transferred to the Kannur jail, stating that he hails from that district and that being closer to home would ease the burden on his family and make visitation possible.