Published Feb 27, 2026 | 8:30 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 27, 2026 | 8:30 PM
Actor Dileep.
Synopsis: The prosecution moved the High Court against the verdict of the Principal Sessions Court, contending that the acquittal of Dileep and others was illegal and contrary to established principles of criminal procedure and natural justice. It argued that the trial court’s findings send a wrong message to society and that crucial digital evidence was rejected on trivial grounds.
The Kerala government on Thursday, 27 February, has filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the acquittal of actor Dileep and another accused in the 2017 actress kidnapping and assault case.
The prosecution moved the High Court against the verdict of the Principal Sessions Court, contending that the acquittal of Dileep and others was illegal and contrary to established principles of criminal procedure and natural justice.
It argued that the trial court’s findings send a wrong message to society and that crucial digital evidence was rejected on trivial grounds.
The government had earlier granted sanction to file an appeal against the trial court judgment. In its plea, the prosecution has also sought enhancement of the sentences awarded to the six convicted accused, including the prime accused N. S. Sunilkumar alias Pulsar Suni.
The High Court is expected to consider the government’s appeal in due course.
The Principal Sessions Court had sentenced first accused Sunilkumar, second accused Martin Antony, third accused B. Manikandan, fourth accused V. P. Vijeesh, fifth accused H. Salim (Vadiwal Salim), and sixth accused Pradeep to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Actor Dileep, who was the eighth accused in the case, and another accused Sarath was acquitted. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy charge framed against actor Dileep. The court added that the charge of tampering with evidence will also not stand against Dileep.
The accused were charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), Section 109 (abetment), Section 366 (kidnapping or abduction of a woman), Section 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), Section 354B (use of criminal force with intent to disrobe), Section 357 (wrongful confinement), Section 376D (gang rape), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 212 (harbouring an offender), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
They were also charged under provisions of the IT Act, 2008 for allegedly recording and circulating visuals of the assault.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Dileep V Kumar)
