Published Jun 05, 2026 | 10:11 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 05, 2026 | 10:11 PM
The plea has renewed focus on one of the most disturbing controversies surrounding the high-profile case.
Synopsis: In the sensational actress assault case, the survivor has reopened a legal battle by seeking a court-monitored probe into the alleged unauthorised access of the memory card containing visuals of the assault while it was in judicial custody. The fresh plea has reignited troubling questions over digital evidence handling, privacy of survivors and institutional accountability, even as the trial court had earlier ruled that the footage remained untampered and the evidentiary value of the memory card was intact.
The survivor in the sensational 2017 actress assault case has once again knocked on the doors of the Kerala High Court, seeking a fresh, court-monitored investigation into the alleged unauthorised access of the memory card containing visuals of the sexual assault, while it remained in judicial custody.
In a writ petition, the survivor raised grave concerns that the sensitive footage may have been copied, transmitted or circulated after the device was allegedly accessed multiple times during the trial.
The plea has renewed focus on one of the most disturbing controversies surrounding the high-profile case, which had already triggered intense public debate over survivor privacy, handling of digital evidence and institutional accountability.
Also Read: Actor assault case survivor alleges bias and lapses in trial process
The petition, filed through advocates Bhadra Kumari KV, Vrinda Grover, Rhuthunanda SB, Arunima TS and Byja EG, sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) with expertise in cybercrime and digital forensics to conduct a comprehensive and time-bound probe into the alleged breach.
According to the plea, forensic examinations carried out by the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Thiruvananthapuram, revealed that the memory card containing the assault visuals was accessed on three separate occasions — 9 January 2018, 13 December 2018 and 19 July 2021 — while it was in the custody of the trial court.
The survivor contended that the possibility of copying or transmission of the videos cannot be ruled out and argued that the unauthorised access amounted to a serious violation of her privacy, dignity and fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The plea further alleges that despite earlier directions issued by the High Court, the circumstances under which the memory card was allegedly accessed were never investigated in a fair, effective or complete manner.
The survivor had first approached the High Court in 2022, raising allegations regarding unauthorised access to the memory card.
Following this, the court had ordered a fact-finding inquiry by the trial court.
However, after the inquiry report was submitted, the survivor objected to the manner in which the probe had been conducted, claiming that crucial aspects were left unexplored.
In April 2024, the High Court directed that copies of statements recorded during the inquiry be furnished to the survivor, while keeping open the question of whether a separate investigation by an SIT was necessary.
In the latest petition, the survivor has also sought a copy of the pen drive containing the video recordings of the assault.
Also Read: Kerala court awards 20 years’ RI to all 6 in 2017 actor assault case
The new plea comes months after the Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Court concluded the nearly eight-year-long trial in the case.
The court acquitted actor Dileep while convicting six other accused.
Even while addressing the controversy surrounding the memory card, the trial court had observed in its 12 December 2025 judgment that the evidentiary value of the memory card had not been affected.
The court had stated that it could “clearly arrive at a finding” that the visuals remained intact and that the privacy of the survivor was “never compromised.”
However, the survivor’s latest plea directly challenges the adequacy of the inquiry into the alleged access of the digital evidence and insists that a deeper forensic investigation is required to ascertain whether the footage was copied or shared.
The case relates to the abduction and sexual assault of a prominent Malayalam actor inside a moving vehicle near Kochi on 17 February 2017.
The assault was allegedly filmed and later transferred to a memory card that subsequently became one of the most crucial pieces of evidence in the trial.
Meanwhile, appeals arising from the trial verdict are now pending before the Kerala High Court.
While the convicted persons have challenged their convictions and sentences, the state has separately appealed against Dileep’s acquittal and sought enhancement of punishment for the convicts.
The controversy over the alleged handling of the memory card has also sparked wider concern among women’s rights activists and legal groups.
Also Read: ‘Forever, always with her’
The latest legal move also comes amid an intensified campaign by Avalkkoppam (with her) Legal Support Trust, a collective formed to support the survivor through the prolonged legal battle.
In May this year, the collective launched a public fund mobilisation campaign to assist the survivor as she prepared to challenge the trial court verdict before the Kerala High Court.
In its public appeal, Avalkkoppam described the December 2025 judgment in the so-called “quotation rape case” as deeply unjust and said civil society had a responsibility to stand with survivors seeking justice in cases involving violence against women.
Significantly, the collective placed strong emphasis on the controversy surrounding the memory card and the alleged mishandling of the digital evidence while it was under court custody.
Referring to the forensic findings regarding repeated changes in the hash value of the device, Avalkkoppam alleged that the visuals of the assault may have been copied onto other devices, amounting to a shocking violation of the survivor’s privacy and dignity.
The group also criticised the earlier inquiry process ordered by the High Court, claiming that despite judicial acknowledgement of the issue, the investigation did not progress meaningfully or result in accountability for those allegedly responsible for the breach.
According to the collective, the survivor’s latest writ petition is aimed at securing a proper investigation into the circumstances under which the memory card was allegedly accessed, copied and possibly transmitted while in judicial custody.
Also Read: Will acquittal alter equations: Dileep’s place in Mollywood
In its 12 December 2025 judgment, the Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Court had examined in detail the controversy surrounding the memory card that contained visuals of the sexual assault survivor.
Point No. 43 of the judgment specifically dealt with the question of whether the change in the hash value of the memory card had affected its evidentiary value and, consequently, the fairness of the trial.
The court traced the chain of custody of the micro SD card, noting that the 8GB memory card was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court by advocate EC Poulose on 20 February 2017 after it was allegedly entrusted to him by Pulsar Suni, one of the convicts in the case.
The card was later sent for forensic examination.
The State Forensic Science Laboratory reported that a forensic image of the memory card had initially been created using Cyber Check software, while further analysis was carried out using “Encase” software.
The original MD-5 hash value of the memory card was generated during this process, and investigators retrieved several deleted picture and video files from the device, including the eight video clips central to the case.
The forensic examination found no signs of morphing, editing or tampering in the retrieved videos. The FSL also stated that it was not possible to identify the device from which the recordings had been transferred to the memory card.
While later examinations detected a change in the overall hash value of the memory card, the court noted that forensic reports consistently showed that the individual MD-5 hash values of the eight video files remained unchanged from the very first forensic imaging conducted on 1 March 2017.
Relying on these findings, the trial court concluded that the visuals depicting the sexual assault survivor had remained “untampered, unedited and untouched” from the time the memory card was first produced before the court.
The court further arrived at the decision that “the evidentiary value of the memory card is not affected in any way, and also that the visuals remained intact and the privacy of the survivor is never compromised.”
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
