The Kerala Government has challenged the acquittal of actor Dileep (Accused No. 8) in the 2017 actress assault case before the High Court. The State has also appealed against the acquittal of Accused No. 7 Charly Thomas, Accused No. 9 Sanilkumar @ Mesthiri Sanil, and Accused No. 15 Sarath G. Nair.
The State argues that the sessions court erred in clearing them of charges related to criminal conspiracy and allied offences.
Trial Court Convictions and Sentences
In the same judgment, the sessions court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 6:
- Pulsar Suni (A1)
- Martin Antony (A2)
- B. Manikandan (A3)
- V.P. Vijeesh (A4)
- H. Saleem (A5)
- C. Pradeep (A6)
The court found them guilty under Sections 120B, 340, 354, 366, 354B, and 376D of the Indian Penal Code.
The court sentenced A1 to A6 to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for gang rape. It imposed additional concurrent sentences for related offences. The court also directed that ₹5 lakh from the fine amount be paid to the survivor as compensation.
State Seeks Enhancement of Sentence
The State has sought enhancement of the sentence imposed on Accused Nos. 1 to 6. It contends that the punishment is inadequate considering the gravity of the offence and its societal impact.
Challenge to Acquittals
The appeal also questions the acquittal of:
- Charly Thomas, who faced charges of harbouring offenders
- Dileep, who was cleared of all charges
- Sanilkumar and Sarath Nair, who were acquitted of conspiracy, abetment, and destruction of evidence
The State argues that the trial court failed to conduct a holistic assessment of the evidence relating to the alleged larger conspiracy.
Alleged Conspiracy Since 2013
According to the prosecution, the evidence shows a primary conspiracy between A8 (Dileep) and A1 dating back to 2013. The State claims personal enmity against the survivor motivated the conspiracy. It argues that A1 to A6 committed the acts in furtherance of this plan.
Investigation Defended
The State has also disputed adverse remarks made by the trial court against the investigation team. It maintains that the Special Investigation Team conducted a fair and comprehensive probe.
The appeal asserts that minor defects in investigation cannot justify acquittal unless the accused demonstrates clear prejudice.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni and Ors
