Kerala actress gang rape: Kerala Court sentences Pulsar Suni, other convicts to 20 years rigorous imprisonment

A Kerala court on Friday sentenced Pulsar Suni, the main accused in the 2017 actress gang rape case, and five others who were convicted for the crime along with him, to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment as punishment [State of Kerala v. Sunil NS @ Pulsar Suni].

Ernakulam District and Sessions Court judge Honey M Varghese pronounced the much awaited judgment on the question of conviction on December 8, acquitting accused Malayalam actor Dileep, while convicting six others.

The persons convicted were Sunil NS aka Pulsar Suni, Martin Antony, Manikandan B, Vijeesh VP, Salim H aka Vadival Salim and Pradeep.

The Court heard the six convicts on the question of sentence today, before ordering that they serve twenty years of rigorous imprisonment for the crime of committing gang rape.

"Find that considering the mitigating circumstances, there is no circumstance warranting the maximum punishment. In view of the above, A1 to A6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and also to pay a fine of ₹50,000 each for the offence punishable under Section 376D (gang rape) of IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 376D," the Court ordered.

Referring to the other offences that the convicts were found guilty of, the judge added,

"In view of the sentence awarded above, no separate sentence is imposed on accused A2 to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 342, 354, 354B, 357, 366 and 376D of IPC.

A1 to A6 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a time of one year for the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC. In view of the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 376D of IPC, no separate sentence is imposed for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC."

Referring to the IT Act offences against Pulsar Suni, the judge ordered:

"A1 (Suni) is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and with a fine of ₹1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000.

A1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and also to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000."

The Court further sentenced co-accused Martin Antony to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and pay a fine of ₹25,000 for the offence punishable under Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.

The Court clarified that these sentences shall run concurrently (at the same time and not sequentially), meaning that the convicts will serve 20 years of imprisonment.

The Court further ordered the payment of ₹5 lakhs as compensation to the survivor, once the convicts pay the fines imposed on them today.

"If the fines are realised, ₹5 lakh will be be paid to the survivior. The accused are entitled for set-off of the period of incarceration already undergone," the Court said.

While pronouncing the sentencing order, Judge Varghese added that the sensational nature of the case alone cannot influence its outcome and that today's sentence seeks to balance various factors.

"This case has created a sensation, but the court should bear in mind that the sensational nature of the case does not make any impact on the mind of the court while awarding the sentence. The court, while awarding the sentence, has to balance justice for society and the offender by considering the crime's aggravated history, reform potential of the accused, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the aims of punishment," the judge said.

The factors considered by the court included the gravity of the crime and the effect it had on the survivor actress.

"While awarding sentence, the court shall not be carried away with any sort of sensational bias. At the very same time, this court has to consider the fact that the acts of the accused persons amount to blot to the supreme dignity of women. The act violated her right to safety and created fear, humiliation, pushing her into shame and helplessness. It also caused psychological trauma, causing mental distress. She was subjected to the attack while she was travelling to the house of her friend without anticipating any untoward incident. This fact is also to be considered," the court held.

It went on to disclose the other factors weighing in the mind of the court while pronouncing the sentence, including the background of the convicts.

"But at the very same time, this court has to consider the circumstances, including the age of the accused, their family condition, and also the fact that no criminal antecedents are pending against them except A1 (Pulser Suni). All the accused are below 40 years. In Nirbhaya case, the Supreme Court held that the crime against women intentionally affects women's self esteem, dignity, but also degrades the pace of societal development. It has also held the need to sensitise the public on gender justice," Judge Varghese said.

The survivor actress was on her way to a film shoot location in February 2017 when she was abducted and sexually assaulted by a group of men, in a moving vehicle.

The men also recorded videos of the assault. The very next day, the driver of the vehicle, Martin Antony, was arrested and within a week, Sunil NS aka Pulsar Suni, a history sheeter, was arrested. Suni was named as first accused. By the end of the month, four others were arrested and arrayed as accused.

In July, 2017, Dileep was arrested for allegedly conspiring and orchestrating the rape to extract revenge as the survivor actress had informed his now ex-wife about his extramarital affair.

On December 8, the Court acquitted Dileep of all charges.

It, however, convicted  Pulsar Suni, Martin Antony, Manikandan B, Vijeesh VP, Vadival Salim and Pradeep.

They were found guilty of offences under 120B (criminal conspiracy), 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (use of force to outrage modesty of woman), 366 (kidnapping), 354B (use of force to disrobe woman), 357 (use of criminal force to wrongfully confine a person) and 376D (gang rape) of Indian Penal Code.

All six were found guilty of conspiring to commit the offences under Section 66E (capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent) and 67A (publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act for video recording the sexual assault. However, only Suni was found guilty directly under these two provisions.

During today's hearing on sentencing, Suni told the Court that he was the only person who could take care of his elderly mother and sought leniency on that ground.

Antony stated that he had not played any part in the crime but had spent many years in jail already. He also said that his parents depended on him.

Manikandan said that he was not part of the conspiracy and that his wife and children depend on him as a breadwinner.

Vijeesh merely asked the Court for leniency and requested that he be sent to a jail close to his hometown.

Vadival Salim and Pradeep maintained that they were innocent.

However, Special Public Prosecutor Ajakumar strongly opposed the same and argued that the sentence should also be a message to society that such crimes will not be tolerated. He requested the court to sentence all 6 men to life imprisonment for their crimes.

Judge Varghese orally remarked that the fact that Suni was the only one who actually committed the rape may have to be taken into account even though all parties to a conspiracy are equally liable for the offences committed.

[Live Coverage]