Kerala Actress Gang Rape Case Verdict: Six Convicts Sent To Prison for 20 Years

The long running 2017 Kerala actress assault case reached a major turning point as the Ernakulam District and Sessions Court delivered its sentencing for the six men who were convicted earlier this month. The case, which has remained one of the most discussed criminal matters in the Malayalam entertainment industry, returned to focus as the court handed down twenty years of rigorous imprisonment to the primary accused Pulsar Suni and five others.

The order came after the court had, on December 8, convicted six individuals while acquitting Malayalam actor Dileep, who had been charged with conspiracy. With the question of guilt already decided, the courtroom reconvened to address punishment and the larger implications of the verdict.

The Sentencing That Brings a Long Chapter to a Close

On Friday, Judge Honey M Varghese heard arguments on sentencing from the prosecution and defence. The court eventually imposed twenty years of rigorous imprisonment on Sunil NS also known as Pulsar Suni, Martin Antony, Manikandan B, Vijeesh VP, Salim H also known as Vadival Salim and Pradeep.

The punishment was for the offence of gang rape under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code. Each of the six men was ordered to pay a fine of Rs 50,000. The court said:

"Find that considering the mitigating circumstances, there is no circumstance warranting the maximum punishment. In view of the above, A1 to A6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and also to pay a fine of Rs 50,000 each for the offence punishable under Section 376D of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 376D."

The court also addressed the other charges in the case, including wrongful confinement and various sections relating to force and assault. It clarified that no separate sentences were required for several clauses due to the weight of the primary punishment.

Additional Sentences Under the Information Technology Act

The first accused, Pulsar Suni, faced added punishment for offences under the Information Technology Act. These charges stemmed from allegations that explicit footage of the assault was captured and handled electronically.

Judge Varghese said:

"A1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and with a fine of Rs 1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000.

A1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs 1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000."

Co accused Martin Antony also received a separate sentence of three years for the charge of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the IPC, along with a fine of Rs 25,000.

All sentences will run concurrently, meaning the convicts will serve a total of twenty years.

Compensation for the Survivor

The court directed that Rs 5 lakh be paid as compensation to the survivor if and when the fines are recovered. It also clarified that the period already spent in custody would be considered.

"If the fines are realised, Rs 5 lakh will be paid to the survivor. The accused are entitled for set off of the period of incarceration already undergone."

Judge Varghese emphasized that the public attention surrounding the case could not dictate the court’s approach.

"This case has created a sensation, but the court should bear in mind that the sensational nature of the case does not make any impact on the mind of the court while awarding the sentence. The court, while awarding the sentence, has to balance justice for society and the offender by considering the crime's aggravated history, reform potential of the accused, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the aims of punishment."

What Happened in 2017

The incident took place in February 2017 when the survivor, a popular actress in the Malayalam industry, was travelling to meet a friend. She was abducted by a group of men who assaulted her inside a moving vehicle. The attackers filmed parts of the incident. The next morning, the driver of the vehicle, Martin Antony, was arrested. Within a week, police apprehended Pulsar Suni, who became the first accused. Over the next few days, the remaining men were arrested and charged.

The case took a dramatic turn later that year when actor Dileep was arrested on allegations that he had orchestrated the crime as revenge. He was accused of conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC.

Conviction and Acquittal

On December 8, the court pronounced its judgment on the question of guilt. Dileep was acquitted of all charges. However, Suni, Antony, Manikandan, Vijeesh, Vadival Salim and Pradeep were found guilty of conspiracy, wrongful confinement, using criminal force, kidnapping, using force to disrobe, and gang rape. They were also convicted under Sections 66E and 67A of the IT Act for recording the assault, although only Suni was held guilty directly under these provisions.

The survivor’s testimony, supported by forensic evidence and digital trail, formed the backbone of the prosecution.

Arguments Heard Before Sentencing

During the hearing on sentencing, Suni requested leniency, telling the court he was the only person who could look after his ageing mother. Antony said he had spent many years in jail already and that his parents depended on him. Others pleaded that their families would suffer without them. Manikandan said his wife and children relied on him as the primary earner. Vijeesh asked to be shifted to a jail close to his hometown. Vadival Salim and Pradeep said they were innocent.

Special Public Prosecutor Ajakumar strongly opposed any reduction in punishment and argued that the sentence should send a message that such crimes will not be tolerated. He asked for life imprisonment for all six men.

Judge Varghese noted that the court must recognize both the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the accused.

"While awarding sentence, the court shall not be carried away with any sort of sensational bias. At the very same time, this court has to consider the fact that the acts of the accused persons amount to blot to the supreme dignity of women. The act violated her right to safety and created fear, humiliation, pushing her into shame and helplessness. It also caused psychological trauma, causing mental distress."

The court also considered the age and personal backgrounds of the convicts.

"But at the very same time, this court has to consider the circumstances, including the age of the accused, their family condition, and also the fact that no criminal antecedents are pending against them except A1. All the accused are below 40 years."

The court referenced the Nirbhaya case to note that crimes against women not only harm individuals but also impact societal progress.

A Case That Reshaped Public Discourse

The 2017 assault case changed how Kerala viewed cinema, power structures and gender dynamics within the industry. It created unprecedented public debate and led to the formation of the Women in Cinema Collective. Over the years, the case has expanded into an examination of workplace safety, support systems for women in film and the use of digital evidence in criminal trials.

The sentencing brings closure to the main criminal trial, although further proceedings such as appeals are likely to follow.

What do you think about the entire saga? Let us know in the comments below.