The first accused initially claimed the "quotation came from a woman" but later changed his version, alleging Dileep's involvement.
Published Dec 14, 2025 | 7:26 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 14, 2025 | 7:26 PM
Pulsar Suni (supplied).
Synopsis: The Ernakulam Sessions Court flagged major lapses in the actress assault case probe, saying key claims by the survivor — especially about a “quotation” by a woman — were not investigated. It ruled the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy or motive involving actor Dileep, questioned missing evidence, and rejected several unsubstantiated allegations.
The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court has flagged serious lapses in the investigation into the actress assault case, noting that crucial claims made by the survivor were not properly examined.
In a detailed 1,714 page order, the trial court pointed out that the survivor had clearly stated the crime was carried out on a “quotation given by a woman”, but no probe was conducted into this crucial assertion.
According to the survivor, the first accused Pulsar Suni, told her that the assault was executed on a quotation and that the recorded visuals would be handed over to those who placed it. He allegedly said they would be contacted after 10 am the following day and asked the survivor whether she was aware of her enemies.
The court observed that despite these clear statements, the investigation failed to identify or examine the woman referred to by the first accused.
The court noted that the initial investigation concluded the crime was planned by the first to sixth accused to extort money by threatening to circulate the footage, while actor Dileep was later named as an accused based on a letter written by Pulsar Suni from jail.
The first accused initially claimed the quotation came from a woman but later changed his version, alleging Dileep’s involvement.
The court held that the prosecution should have thoroughly investigated this contradiction.
The trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a criminal conspiracy between Pulsar Suni and Dileep and found no evidence to prove that Dileep had given a quotation or destroyed digital evidence from his mobile phone.
It also pointed out that before the final report was filed on 18 April, 2017, the survivor had not made any statement implicating Dileep. The prosecution’s claim that she was afraid to name him was rejected, with the court noting that the investigation was conducted by senior police officers.
The court further observed that the survivor had given an interview in 2015 criticising the eighth accused, which could have been examined during the investigation. In the further investigation report filed in Nov 2017, the prosecution alleged that the quotation was issued by Dileep, but the court noted that women close to the first accused were not examined and the possibility of their knowledge of the crime was ignored.
The court rejected the prosecution’s claim that the conspiracy began in 2013 and was delayed until 2017 due to the first accused being absconding, calling the explanation unconvincing.
Claims regarding rehearsals in Goa and visits near Dileep’s residence in Aluva were also dismissed.
Serious questions were raised over the missing mobile phone allegedly used to record the assault. Despite extensive searches, the device has not been recovered. The investigation report claimed the phone was destroyed after being in the custody of the first accused’s lawyer, a claim the court questioned, noting that further investigation cannot proceed effectively if the device is said to have been destroyed.
On the memory card, the court clarified that allegations regarding a change in hash value would not affect the trial, stating that the eight files containing the recorded visuals remain secure and intact.
The court also found that the prosecution failed to substantiate its claim that actor Dileep abducted and sexually assaulted the survivor out of revenge stemming from personal enmity. The alleged motive, linked to the survivor informing Dileep’s first wife, Manju Warrier about his purported relationship with Kavya Madhavan was not supported by evidence.
The court noted that messages allegedly seen by Manju on Dileep’s phone were never produced, and she did not disclose their contents. Her statements regarding when and where she saw the messages were also inconsistent.
The allegation that Dileep denied the survivor film opportunities was supported only by her oral testimony, with no substantial evidence.
Claims of an illicit relationship between Dileep and Kavya were also found unproven. The court observed that Kavya denied frequent contact with Dileep and there was no material to show that such a relationship existed. An alleged confrontation during a European tour in 2012 was termed improbable, as it was said to have occurred in the presence of other performers without anyone else noticing.
The court also found it unbelievable that the survivor and Dileep had no communication despite continuing to perform together after the alleged incident.
The judge held that while the relationship between Dileep and the survivor may not have been cordial, the prosecution failed to prove that he harboured hatred or intended to destroy her career. Allegations relating to the AMMA rehearsal camp in 2013 were also not established.
The court further observed that no witness proved that Pulsar Suni used a mobile phone in jail to contact Dileep, no probe was conducted into the alleged charger used inside the prison, and the authenticity of the letter purportedly sent by Suni to Dileep was not established.
(With inputs from Sreelakshmi Soman. Edited by Amit Vasudev)
