Kochi: Nearly eight years have passed since a shocking crime shook the Malayalam film industry and the lives of those involved. At the heart of this long-drawn saga is one of Malayalam cinema’s most celebrated actors, Dileep, accused of orchestrating a brutal attack on a fellow actress. On Monday, the Kerala court is expected to deliver a verdict in the case, closing a chapter that has been marked by extraordinary twists, agonising delays, and a public and legal battle that far outlasted initial expectations.
The victim, an actress who has worked across Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu cinema, was abducted and allegedly molested in her car for two hours on the night of February 17, 2017. According to reports, assailants forced their way into the vehicle in a busy area of Kochi and escaped before help could arrive, leaving the victim traumatized and the industry in shock.
The trial, presided over by Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese, began in January 2020 after multiple delays. The accused in the case include ten individuals: Sunil NS (alias Pulsar Suni), Martin Antony, Manikandan B, Vijesh VP, Salim H, Pradeep, Charly Thomas, Dileep, Sanil Kumar (alias Mesthri Sanil), and Sharath. They faced charges under a wide range of sections from the Indian Penal Code including 120A, 120B (criminal conspiracy), 109 (abetment), 366 (kidnapping), 354, 354B (sexual harassment and assault), 357 (punishment for assault or criminal force to deter public servant from duty), 376D (gang rape), 201 (destruction of evidence), 212 (harassment of witnesses), 34 (common intention), and also under sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. Dileep himself faced an additional charge under Section 204 of the IPC.
Timeline of Arrests and Charges
The initial investigation led to the arrest of seven individuals in April 2017, shortly after the incident. Dileep was arrested on July 10, 2017, following revelations that Pulsar Suni, the alleged prime accused, had sent him a letter from jail that implicated him in the crime. He was granted bail later that year, on October 3, 2017.
In November 2017, a supplementary chargesheet was filed, adding Dileep and six others to the list of accused. Over the course of the investigation, five of these individuals were either discharged or became approvers. The police were unable to recover the mobile phone used to record the sexual assault visuals, but the memory card containing the videos was eventually submitted to the court by a lawyer.
According to prosecution claims, the conspiracy was allegedly born out of a personal conflict. The complainant had reportedly informed Dileep’s first wife, Manju Warrier, about his alleged affair with another actress. A confrontation between Dileep and the complainant occurred during a stage rehearsal in 2016, which the police allege was followed by the planning of the assault at a Kochi hotel.
Trials and Delays
The trial has been marked by repeated delays and procedural hurdles. In 2019, Dileep petitioned the Kerala High Court seeking a CBI probe, which was dismissed. Later, the Supreme Court directed that the trial be completed within six months, but various petitions by the accused, the prosecution, and the complainant delayed proceedings. The COVID-19 pandemic further halted the trial for several months.
Over the years, the case saw frequent changes in prosecution leadership. Special Prosecutor A Suresan resigned, and the prosecution sought to transfer the trial to another court in December 2020. When the investigation officer was about to be examined as the last witness in December 2021, new information emerged, prompting the court to allow further investigation. This was based on revelations by film director B Balachandra Kumar, who claimed Dileep possessed visuals of the victim. Additional allegations that Dileep conspired to harm investigating officers led to another case against him and five others.
The prosecution team also underwent changes. V N Anilkumar was appointed Special Public Prosecutor but resigned in December 2021, replaced by V Ajakumar. In 2022, a new controversy arose when police sought an inquiry into alleged illegal access to the memory card containing explicit content. Although the petition was dismissed, the Kerala High Court ordered a fact-finding inquiry after the complainant alleged tampering. It was revealed that the memory card had been accessed by a magistrate and later by officials at the District Sessions Court. This led the High Court to issue detailed guidelines on handling sexually explicit evidence in December 2023.
Evidence and Witnesses
A total of 261 witnesses were examined during the trial, including numerous individuals from the film industry. Many of these actor-witnesses turned hostile during the proceedings. The investigation officer alone was examined for 109 days. The court admitted 834 documents and two defence witnesses.
The trial also witnessed the passing of two key witnesses: former MLA PT Thomas and director B Balachandra Kumar, who died during the course of proceedings. Despite the challenges, the investigation officer who participated in the trial expressed confidence, stating, “We are hopeful of the judgment, as all possible evidence was presented before the court. The delay was due to various developments during the trial.”
Public Attention and Impact on Malayalam Cinema
The case has remained in the public eye since the incident, significantly impacting Dileep’s career and sparking wider conversations about sexual harassment, abuse of power, and accountability in the film industry. The prolonged trial and sensational media coverage have ensured that the case is not just a legal battle, but also a narrative struggle over morality, public perception, and the workings of justice in high-profile cases.
For the Malayalam film fraternity, the verdict will mark the end of an eight-year-long uncertainty, not just for the accused but also for the victim, who has waited for the judicial system to deliver closure. The case underscores the complexities of high-profile criminal trials, where public attention, media narratives, and procedural challenges intersect, often stretching justice timelines far beyond what is reasonable.
Conclusion
After eight years of investigation, delays, procedural hurdles, resignations, and controversies, the Kerala court is finally poised to deliver a verdict in a case that has been both a criminal trial and a public spectacle. Beyond the individual fates of the accused, the case represents a broader debate on justice, accountability, and protection for victims of sexual assault, particularly in industries where power dynamics can complicate legal recourse.
For many, Monday’s judgment will not just settle the question of Dileep’s involvement, but also serve as a test of the legal system’s ability to deliver timely justice, even in cases entangled with fame, influence, and media scrutiny.
Leave a Reply