Kerala Government Appeals Actress Assault Case, Challenges Dileep's Acquittal
Kerala Govt Appeals Actress Assault Case, Challenges Acquittal

Kerala Government Files High Court Appeal in Actress Assault Case

The Kerala Government has taken decisive action in the long-pending actress assault case, officially filing an appeal with the Kerala High Court. This move challenges the controversial verdict delivered by the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court that had acquitted several key accused.

State Challenges Acquittal of Four Accused Including Actor Dileep

In a significant legal development, the state government has formally appealed the acquittal of four individuals: actor Dileep, Charly Thomas, Sanil, and Sharath. The government's petition argues that the trial court failed to properly evaluate both the legal framework and factual evidence presented during the case.

The appeal contends that critical links in the evidence chain were overlooked, which ultimately weakened the judicial scrutiny process. According to the government's submission, the trial court's decision to acquit these four individuals due to "lack of evidence for criminal conspiracy" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the case's evidentiary foundation.

Government Seeks Maximum Punishment for Convicted Accused

The appeal doesn't stop at challenging acquittals. The Kerala Government is also demanding maximum punishment for the six men already convicted in the case, including prime accused Pulsar Suni. These individuals received 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentences from the trial court.

The government emphasizes the severity of the crime, highlighting how the assault violated the survivor's privacy and dignity, particularly noting that the incident was recorded on camera. The appeal stresses that imposing anything less than maximum punishment would send the wrong societal message about such serious offenses.

Appeal Alleges Dileep Was Mastermind Behind Attack

In perhaps the most explosive allegation, the government's appeal claims that actor Dileep was the "mastermind behind the brutal assault." According to the petition, Dileep allegedly believed the survivor had damaged his family life, and this resentment led him to orchestrate the conspiracy.

The government points to witness accounts and other evidence suggesting multiple meetings between Dileep and Pulsar Suni at various locations, which they argue indicate planning and coordination. The appeal contends these interactions were improperly overlooked by the trial court in its evaluation of the conspiracy charges.

Timeline and Context of the Case

The assault occurred on February 17, 2017, while the actress was traveling from Thrissur to Kochi. After an extensive trial spanning years, the verdict was delivered on December 8, 2025, with sentencing following on December 12, 2025.

While the state had initially promised a swift appeal following the verdict, the actual filing occurred on the 78th day after judgment, drawing attention due to this delay. Meanwhile, the convicted individuals had already approached the Kerala High Court with their own appeals within weeks of the verdict.

The survivor had previously expressed frustration on social media, writing: "My mistake. When an attack happened against me, I immediately went to the police and moved forward asking for legal action!! I should have accepted everything that happened that day as fate, stayed silent, and told no one anything."

Additional Legal Requests in the Appeal

Beyond challenging the acquittals and seeking maximum punishment, the government's appeal includes additional requests:

  • Removal of remarks made against investigating officer Baiju Paulose in the lower court's verdict
  • Comprehensive reevaluation of all evidence presented during the trial
  • Proper application of legal principles regarding conspiracy charges

This appeal represents the latest chapter in a case that has captured national attention for years, with the Kerala Government now positioning itself as seeking what it views as proper justice through the appellate process.