Kerala actor abduction case: All six accused sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment
KOCHI: In a significant setback for the prosecution, the Ernakulam District and Sessions Court on Friday sentenced all six convicts, including prime accused Pulsar Suni, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment in the 2017 actor abduction and rape case. The prosecution had strongly argued for life imprisonment for all the accused, particularly Suni, but the court held that this was not a case warranting the maximum sentence. All six convicts will now be shifted to Viyyur Central Jail in Thrissur. Delivering a judgment running over several pages, District and Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese noted that although the case attracted intense public attention, sensationalism has no bearing on sentencing. She emphasised that all the convicts are below 40 years of age and, except for Suni, none have a prior criminal record. The time served during the pendency of the trial will be set off against the conviction period. Taking this into account, Suni and Martin, who have each spent nearly seven years in custody, will now serve around 13 more years, while Manikandan and Vijeesh, who have served about three and a half years each, will spend roughly 16 and a half more. Salim and Pradeep, who have each spent about two years in jail, will serve approximately 18 more years. The courts sentencing remarks underscored the balance required in criminal justice. While awarding the sentence, the court must take into account the impact the crime has had on the victim and on society. Sentencing should be balanced in a way that ensures justice both to society and to the accused. The court must also consider the history of the offence, the possibility of reforming the accused, and the objectives of punishment. The court should not be swayed by emotions or act with bias while imposing the sentence, the court said. Actor abduction and sexual assault case: Conspiracy or not, many questions need answers At the same time, the court cannot ignore the fact that the acts of the accused questioned the dignity of the woman. The victim's right to safety was violated, and she was subjected to fear, humiliation, and helplessness. This also caused her psychological trauma. It should also be considered that she was attacked while on her way to a friends house, and that the incident was unexpected.However, the court also considers the age of the accused, their family circumstances, and the argument that, except for the first accused, the others have no other criminal background. All the accused are below 40 years of age. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the Nirbhaya case (Mukesh v. State of Delhi) are relevant here. Crimes against women affect not only their dignity but also the progress of society. The judgment also mentions the need to raise public awareness regarding gender justice.In light of the circumstances mentioned above, the court finds that this is not a situation requiring the imposition of the maximum punishment, the order said,awarding the sentence. The court also noted mitigating factors: the age of the accused, their family circumstances, and the fact that, except for Suni, none of the others had any other criminal background. Earlier in the day, the courtroom witnessed tense scenes as the judge, prosecution, survivors counsel TB Mini, and defence teams assembled at 10.15 am The accused, brought under heavy escort from Viyyur, heard the prosecution call for a life term, describing the assault as a gang-rape case that required the strongest possible message. The defence argued that sentencing must reflect the different roles played by each accused. The judge also questioned the demand for a uniform sentence, asking whether one accused should receive the maximum and others the minimum based on background and involvement. Several of the accused broke down while pleading for leniency. Suni said his mother was his only support, while others insisted they had no role in the crime and cited dependent families and lack of criminal history. The court acknowledged that only Suni committed the rape, but noted that the actions of the others had a facilitating role.Judge Honey Varghese also cautioned the media to report the case responsibly and noted that several contempt petitions related to public commentary on the case would be heard on December 18. Public prosecutor Advocate Ajakumar, after the judgment, expressed total disappointment in the verdict.It is a highly disappointing judgment from the trial court. The punishment awarded for the rape charge is the minimum prescribed under our parliamentary system, and this could send a wrong message to society. A detailed reading of the full judgment is required before offering further comments. Overall, this is not a setback for the prosecution, he said. Meanwhile, Malayalam actor Dileep, who had been acquitted earlier by the Principal Sessions Court, through his counsel, sought the return of his passport surrendered during bail. The court said it would consider the request after roll call. The 2017 assault had triggered an unprecedented reckoning in the Malayalam film industry, prompting several women to speak publicly about harassment, discrimination, and institutional apathy. The incident ultimately led to the formation of the Hema Committee, whose report, released last year, called for wide-ranging reforms to ensure safer and more equitable workplaces for women in cinema. 2017 Kerala actor abduction case: How conspiracy narrative fell apart
13 C
