Pulsar Suni Files High Court Appeal Challenging 20-Year Sentence in 2017 Actor Assault Case
In a significant legal development, Pulsar Suni, also known as N S Sunil, the primary accused in the high-profile 2017 actor assault case, has formally approached the Kerala High Court to challenge his conviction and the severe sentence imposed by the trial court. The appeal, which contests the 20-year rigorous imprisonment term along with a substantial fine, is scheduled for consideration by the high court next week, marking a crucial phase in this long-running legal saga.
Background of the Case and Prosecution Allegations
The prosecution's case, which has captivated national attention for years, outlines a disturbing criminal conspiracy allegedly initiated with actor Dileep, identified as the eighth accused in the matter. According to the charges, Sunil acted as the principal executor of this conspiracy, which involved the abduction of a prominent actress, her subsequent sexual assault, and the clandestine recording of the entire incident on video. The prosecution further asserts that Sunil agreed to carry out these heinous acts in exchange for monetary consideration.
The crime itself unfolded on February 17, 2017, when the actress was traveling from Thrissur to Kochi for a film shoot. The prosecution alleges that Sunil, along with five other co-accused, staged a fake road accident to intercept her vehicle. Following this, they abducted her, wrongfully confined her in another vehicle, subjected her to intimidation and sexual assault, and recorded the entire assault using a digital device. This brutal incident sent shockwaves through the film industry and the wider public, leading to a massive investigation and a trial that spanned seven years.
Trial Court Verdict and Grounds for Appeal
After the protracted trial, the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court delivered its verdict, convicting Sunil and five other accused persons. The court sentenced them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed fines, a decision that has now prompted Sunil to seek redress in the higher judiciary. In his detailed appeal petition, Sunil has raised multiple allegations of procedural irregularities and lapses during the investigation phase, which he claims have compromised the fairness of the trial.
Key arguments presented in the appeal include:
- Unexplained and significant delays in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR), which Sunil contends affected the initial stages of the investigation.
- Allegations of illegal and irregular arrest procedures, questioning the legality of his detention.
- Failure by the investigation team to conduct a valid test identification parade, a critical step in establishing the identity of the accused.
- Suppression of material evidence that could have potentially altered the course of the trial.
- Serious lapses in the handling, custody, and preservation of biological and digital evidence, raising concerns about contamination and integrity.
Sunil has also pointed out specific deficiencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution. He argues that the mobile phone allegedly used to record the explicit visuals was never traced or recovered, creating a gap in the chain of evidence. Furthermore, he challenges the trial court's reliance on the alleged use of a SIM card registered in another person's name, noting that the investigation failed to examine that individual as a suspect.
Challenges to Forensic and DNA Evidence
In a detailed critique of the forensic aspects, Sunil's appeal challenges the trial court's reliance on DNA evidence. He cites admitted delays in the seizure and proper sealing of the memory card containing the alleged recording, along with lapses in its handling and custody. The appeal emphasizes a high probability of secondary transfer and contamination of the DNA samples, which Sunil argues undermines the reliability of this crucial evidence. These technical arguments form a core part of his bid to overturn the conviction.
Seeking Acquittal and Interim Relief
Beyond seeking a complete acquittal by overturning the trial court's verdict, Sunil has also requested interim relief from the high court. He has applied for the suspension of his sentence and the grant of bail, contending that he has already undergone nearly eight years of imprisonment during the investigation and trial period. This duration, he notes, constitutes more than one-third of the total 20-year sentence imposed, a factor he hopes will weigh in favor of temporary release pending the appeal's outcome.
The Kerala High Court's consideration of this appeal next week is eagerly awaited, as it will determine the next legal chapter in a case that has highlighted issues of justice, celebrity vulnerability, and criminal procedure in India. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the legal standards applied in similar high-stakes criminal trials.
