In a strong criticism of the Principal Sessions Court in Ernakulam, which delivered the verdict in the 2017 actress assault case and sentenced six convicts, the survivor has issued her first public response after the judgment, stating that she does not trust the court.

In a detailed social media post, she said she had repeatedly expressed her lack of faith in the trial court over the years and had approached both the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court seeking to have the case transferred. However, all such requests, including pleas to move the case away from the same judge, were dismissed.

Recalling the nearly nine-year-long legal battle, the survivor described the verdict as a “small ray of light” after “8 years, 9 months and 23 days” of pain and emotional turmoil. While expressing gratitude for the conviction of six accused, she said the outcome did not come as a surprise to her. According to her, as early as 2020, she began sensing irregularities in the way the case was being handled, particularly with respect to one of the accused—an issue, she noted, that was also flagged by the prosecution.

The survivor used the moment to respond to those who had dismissed her trauma as fabricated. Dedicating the verdict to those who called her pain a lie and the case a made-up story, she said she hoped they were “at peace” with themselves. She also strongly refuted claims that the first accused was her personal driver, calling such narratives false and misleading. Clarifying her relationship with him, she said he was neither her employee nor someone she knew personally, but a driver assigned for a film project she worked on in 2016, whom she met only once or twice before the crime.

Reflecting on her experience, the survivor said the verdict reinforced a painful realisation that not all citizens are treated equally before the law. She added that while courts play a vital role in upholding justice, judicial outcomes are ultimately shaped by human judgment, and not all courts function in the same manner. She concluded by thanking those who stood by her throughout the long legal battle, while stating that those who continue to target her with abusive remarks and “paid narratives” were free to do so.

The final section of the survivor’s three-page note detailed why she lost faith in the trial court, starting with what she described as a failure to safeguard her fundamental rights. She raised serious concerns over the handling of the case’s key evidence—the memory card—claiming it was illegally accessed three times while in court custody. She also referred to the resignation of two public prosecutors, who cited a hostile atmosphere for the prosecution and, she said, personally cautioned her against expecting justice, alleging bias in the court.

According to the survivor, her repeated demands for a comprehensive probe into the alleged tampering of the memory card went unanswered, with the investigation report withheld despite multiple follow-ups. She added that her apprehensions deepened when, even as she sought a fair trial, the accused filed a petition requesting that the case continue before the same judge. She further stated that she had written to the President and the Prime Minister, conveying her concerns and seeking intervention. Her request to hold the proceedings in open court, allowing public and media scrutiny, was also turned down.

The case
The survivor, a prominent multilingual actor from Kerala, was assaulted on the night of February 17, 2017, after a group of men allegedly forced their way into her vehicle, held her captive for nearly two hours and recorded explicit visuals before fleeing.

On December 12, Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court judge Honey M Varghese sentenced six convicts in the case to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment each for gang rape under Section 376(D) of the IPC and criminal conspiracy under Section 120(B). Each of them was also fined ₹50,000, with an additional one year of imprisonment in case of default. The convicts are Sunil alias Pulsar Suni, Martin Antony, Manikandan B, Vijesh V P, Salim H and Pradeep. The sentencing followed the court’s December 8 verdict convicting the first six accused while acquitting actor Dileep (as the prosecution failed to prove that he conspired to orchestrate the crime) and three others. 

In addition to the main sentence, Pulsar Suni (A1) was awarded three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh under Section 66E of the IT Act for recording the assault, along with five years of rigorous imprisonment and another ₹1 lakh fine under Section 67A for circulating the visuals. Martin Antony (A2) was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹25,000 under Section 201 of the IPC for destroying evidence.

All six accused were also sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹25,000 each under Section 366 of the IPC for kidnapping. The total fines imposed amount to ₹3.25 lakh for Pulsar Suni, ₹1.5 lakh for Martin Antony, and ₹1.25 lakh each for the remaining four convicts. The court also ordered that the period already spent by the accused in judicial custody during the investigation, inquiry or trial be set off against their sentences, reducing the remaining term of imprisonment to be served.