SENSEX
NIFTY
GOLD
USD/INR

Weather

image 10    C

Kerala News

The New Indian Express News

Kerala / The New Indian Express

details

Assumptions and inferences cannot substitute proof: Court on Goa plot

KOCHI: The trial court in the actor abduction and assault case held that the prosecutions claim of a failed plan by N S Sunil aka Pulsar Suni and his accomplices to sexually abuse the survivor in Goa in January 2017, nearly a month before the actual crime in Kochi, was not proved. This allegation formed a key part of the prosecutions case. However, the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court observed that assumptions and inferences cannot substitute proof. The prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of its witness, makeup artist Renju Renjimar, who deposed that Suni was seen walking in the vicinity of actor Dileeps residence in the first week of January 2017. However, the court determined that she was a planted witness. The judgment noted that the prosecution alleged a conspiracy between Suni and Dileep, pursuant to which Suni attempted to commit the assault when the survivor arrived in Goa for a film shoot scheduled on January 4 and 5. According to the prosecution, although Suni attempted to execute the plan, the offence could not be carried out. It argued that Suni was the driver assigned to pick up the survivor from the airport on January 3, but failed to execute as she was accompanied by her makeup assistant, Renju. It was further alleged that Suni later vacated his room and waited nearby in a vehicle for an opportunity to execute the crime. The prosecution also claimed that Suni contacted the fourth accused, V P Vijeesh, to arrange a vehicle for the offence. They relied on call data records between the accused to support this theory. However, the court pointed out that neither the survivor nor her makeup assistant stated that there were any attempts at assault or misbehaviour during the journey from the airport to the hotel. Even if the evidence is taken into account as claimed by the prosecution, it can only be considered as preparation. To constitute an attempt, there must be some overt act towards the commission of the offence, the judge observed. The court noted that, at best, the prosecution case showed that Suni contacted Vijeesh for arranging a vehicle, and the latter in turn contacted a witness, Senthil Kumar, but the attempt did not materialise. It further held that accused one to four were associated with each other as drivers, and therefore, phone calls between them alone could not be treated as evidence of a plan to execute the crime in Goa. The court also rejected prosecutions theory about the recording of the survivors gold ring. It noted that the survivors engagement took place after the incident and that visuals clearly showed the persons identity, making it unnecessary to specifically capture the gold ring for identification.

15 Dec 2025 7:58 am