Published Apr 27, 2026 | 10:17 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 27, 2026 | 11:20 PM
Kerala High Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: A collective of activists, lawyers and public figures has formed the Avalkoppam (With Her) Legal Support Trust to support the survivor in the 2017 Kerala actor sexual assault case. The trust will focus on alleged irregularities in digital evidence and pursue further remedies before the Kerala High Court and, if needed, the Supreme Court of India. The move follows the 2025 trial verdict, which convicted six accused but acquitted Dileep and others.
Over four months after the controversial verdict in the 2017 Kerala actor sexual assault case, a collective of activists, lawyers and public figures has formed the Avalkoppam (With Her) Legal Support Trust to coordinate sustained legal and financial support for the survivor and pursue remedies in higher courts. The effort focuses on alleged lapses in handling digital evidence during the trial.
Among those leading the initiative are activist K Ajitha of Anweshi, scriptwriter and Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) founding member Deedi Damodaran, and IT expert Joseph C Mathew. Film personalities including Bhagyalakshmi and Prakash Bare are also part of the collective.
“We are trying to bring together the best possible legal expertise,” Mathew said, announcing the initiative at a press conference on Monday, 27 April.
“There are concerns that cannot be brushed aside. The integrity of the evidence, especially the changes in hash values, raises questions that need judicial scrutiny.”
The trust plans to file a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, arguing that the handling of the memory card and the alleged tampering, or at least unauthorised access, raises serious concerns.
It has also reached out to senior advocates, including Vrinda Grover, to examine options before the Supreme Court if required.
Ajitha, speaking at the press meet, called the case “unprecedented” and said the pursuit of justice could not end with a single verdict. She reiterated the trust’s aim to ensure accountability for “all those involved”, not just those already convicted.
The survivor is also expected to file an appeal. The trust will seek to be impleaded as a supporting party alongside the prosecution.
“The issue is not only about one case,” Mathew said. “It is about how evidence is treated, how institutions function, and whether survivors can trust the system.”
On the evening of 17 February 2017, the survivor, a prominent female actor in the Malayalam industry, was abducted in her own vehicle near Angamaly in Kochi and assaulted for hours as the vehicle was driven around.
She reached the residence of actor-director Lal the same night, from where a police complaint was filed.
A Special Investigation Team was constituted within 24 hours.
Over the next few years, the incident triggered a reckoning within the Malayalam film industry. It led to the emergence of collectives such as the WCC and, later, the Hema Committee report, which documented systemic issues faced by women. The Kerala State Film Policy unveiled in March also stems from the case.
The case became one of the most protracted criminal trials in Kerala’s recent history.
It moved swiftly at first. By April 2017, the police had filed the first charge sheet, invoking charges including gang rape, kidnapping, criminal intimidation, wrongful confinement, and violations under the Information Technology Act.
As the investigation expanded, it began to examine the possibility of a wider conspiracy.
The prime accused, Sunil NS, known as Pulsar Suni, allegedly told the survivor during the ordeal that he was executing a “quotation” — a hired job meant to intimidate and blackmail. But the trial court later said the prosecution had not proved a contract-based conspiracy.
Actor Dileep (P Gopala Krishnan) was arrested in July 2017 and charged primarily with criminal conspiracy. The prosecution said personal and professional animosity towards the survivor led to the alleged orchestration of the assault.
From 2018, proceedings stretched over eight years, with more than 200 witnesses, multiple forensic examinations, and repeated legal challenges.
On 8 December 2025, the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court delivered its verdict in a 1,709-page judgment. Six accused, including Pulsar Suni, were found guilty. Four others, including Dileep, were controversially acquitted.
The court said there were elements pointing to a conspiracy but held that the prosecution had not proved Dileep’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
The state has since filed an appeal against the acquittal before the High Court.
Also Read: Inside Dileep’s acquittal: What the trial court found missing in the prosecution’s case
As the trial progressed, alleged unauthorised access to a key piece of evidence became a central issue.
The assault was recorded on a mobile phone, producing eight video clips that later became central to the prosecution’s case. A memory card containing the videos was produced in court and kept in judicial custody.
Forensic analysis found that the volume hash of the memory card had changed multiple times while it was in court custody. This is a sign of unauthorised access, because even minor alterations usually change the hash value.
The hash values of the individual video files reportedly remained unchanged in some examinations.
A court-ordered inquiry later found that the memory card had been accessed at least three times by judicial personnel, including a magistrate and court staff.
The findings prompted concern, especially from the survivor, who called it a grave violation of her privacy and dignity. Despite these findings, no significant action followed against those involved.
