The Kerala High Court has refused to suspend the sentence imposed on Sunil N.S., popularly known as Pulsar Suni, the prime convict in the 2017 Kerala actress assault case, holding that he failed to establish any exceptional circumstances warranting such relief pending disposal of his criminal appeal. A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that there was no prima facie illegality, perversity, or manifest infirmity in the judgment delivered by the trial court that would justify suspending the execution of the sentence at the appellate stage. The Court emphasized that suspension of sentence in serious criminal cases is an exceptional remedy and must be granted only where compelling legal grounds exist.
The case arises from the widely reported 2017 actress assault case, in which a Malayalam film actress was abducted while travelling in a vehicle, wrongfully confined, sexually assaulted, and the assault was allegedly recorded on video. The incident triggered one of the most closely followed criminal prosecutions in Kerala, resulting in extensive investigation, multiple arrests, and a lengthy trial before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Following the conclusion of the trial in December 2025, six accused, including Pulsar Suni, were convicted and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for offences including gang rape, wrongful confinement, criminal conspiracy, offences against the dignity of a woman, and violations under the Information Technology Act.
After his conviction, Pulsar Suni filed a criminal appeal before the Kerala High Court challenging the trial court's judgment. Pending disposal of the appeal, he sought suspension of the sentence, contending that he had already spent approximately eight and a half years in custody before conviction and that the hearing of the appeal would likely take considerable time because of the voluminous trial record and the large number of witnesses examined during the proceedings. He argued that continued incarceration during the pendency of the appeal would cause undue hardship.
During the hearing, senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case had undergone significant changes during the course of investigation and trial. It was also argued that the acquittal of certain co-accused, including actor Dileep, demonstrated that the prosecution's broader theory of conspiracy had not been fully accepted by the trial court. According to the defence, these circumstances justified reconsideration of the conviction and warranted suspension of sentence until the appeal could be finally decided.
The State of Kerala strongly opposed the application. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court had rendered a detailed judgment after appreciating extensive oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution further submitted that the offences were of exceptional gravity and that the appellant had played a central role in planning and executing the crime. Counsel appearing for the survivor also opposed the plea, stressing the seriousness of the offences and the need to preserve public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
After examining the submissions, the High Court reiterated the settled legal principles governing suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Bench observed that appellate courts do not ordinarily suspend sentences in cases involving grave offences merely because an appeal has been filed. Instead, the applicant must demonstrate that the conviction suffers from glaring legal defects, manifest perversity, or substantial infirmities which make continued imprisonment unjustified pending appellate adjudication. The Court found that no such circumstances had been established in the present case.
The Division Bench specifically recorded that the appellant had failed to point out any patent infirmity, manifest illegality, or perversity in the judgment of the Sessions Court. At the interlocutory stage, the High Court observed, it could not conclude that the findings recorded by the trial court were so unreasonable or unsustainable as to justify suspension of the sentence. The Court clarified that a detailed reappreciation of evidence would be undertaken only during the final hearing of the criminal appeal and not while deciding an interim application for suspension of sentence.
Another important factor that weighed with the Court was the gravity and nature of the offences. The Bench observed that the case involved a carefully executed and serious crime affecting the bodily autonomy, dignity, and privacy of the survivor. The manner in which the offences were allegedly committed and the severity of the punishment imposed by the trial court required the appellate court to exercise considerable caution before granting interim liberty to the convicted person. The seriousness of the offence itself constituted a relevant consideration while deciding whether suspension of sentence should be granted.
The High Court also took note of the appellant's criminal antecedents. According to the order, Pulsar Suni was involved in multiple serious criminal cases, and the Court observed that his criminal history could not be ignored while considering his request for suspension of sentence. The Bench further referred to allegations that he had become involved in another criminal case while he was on bail in the present matter and had also violated conditions imposed during the period of bail. These circumstances, the Court held, weighed against granting discretionary relief.
The Bench further observed that releasing a person convicted of such grave offences without any exceptional legal justification could undermine public confidence in the rule of law and the administration of criminal justice. Courts are required to balance the rights of a convicted individual against broader societal interests, the rights of victims, and the need to maintain confidence in judicial processes. In the present case, the Court concluded that the balance clearly favoured continued execution of the sentence pending disposal of the appeal.
Consequently, the Kerala High Court dismissed the application seeking suspension of sentence while clarifying that the criminal appeal itself would be considered independently on its own merits at the appropriate stage. The dismissal of the interim application does not amount to a final adjudication of the appeal; rather, it signifies only that the appellant failed to establish sufficient grounds for obtaining temporary suspension of the sentence during the pendency of appellate proceedings.
The ruling reinforces the established judicial principle that conviction by a competent trial court carries a presumption of correctness until overturned on appeal. While appellate courts possess the power to suspend sentences under the Code of Criminal Procedure (and corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita where applicable), such power must be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases involving serious offences against women. The judgment also highlights that prolonged custody alone does not automatically entitle a convicted person to suspension of sentence when the offence is grave and the trial court's findings do not disclose any apparent legal infirmity.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court held that Pulsar Suni failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting suspension of his 20-year sentence in the 2017 actress assault case. Finding no prima facie illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment and considering the gravity of the offence, the appellant's criminal antecedents, and the broader interests of justice, the Court declined to grant interim relief. The decision underscores that suspension of sentence is an extraordinary discretionary remedy that cannot be granted in serious criminal cases unless compelling legal grounds are clearly established.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.