In the Kerala actor assault case , the trial court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the purpose behind Pulsar Suni ’s visit to Laksyah, a clothing store run by Kavya Madhavan . During the trial, the prosecution offered multiple explanations for the visit. At one point, it stated that Suni had gone to collect “quotation” money linked to the abduction and sexual assault of the actor on February 17, 2017. It also claimed that Suni, along with co-accused Vijeesh V. P., visited the store to hand over a letter.

Contradictory versions presented by the prosecution

The court noted that the prosecution simultaneously argued that the visit was meant to deliver a memory card containing visuals of the sexual assault. Additionally, it claimed that the mobile phone used to record the incident was also intended to be handed over at Laksyah. These varying versions, according to the judgment, weakened the prosecution’s case. The court pointed out that no consistent narrative was presented regarding the alleged purpose of the visit.

Court notes lack of link between Dileep and Laksyah operations.

According to India Express, the defense argued that actor Dileep had no role in the management or daily functioning of Laksyah. The court accepted this argument, observing that business establishments in which Dileep held ownership were located in Edappally and Chalakudy. If Suni and Vijeesh intended to meet Dileep, they would have approached those locations or his residence. This observation further cast doubt on the prosecution’s claims regarding the visit.

Insufficient evidence on Suni and Vijeesh’s presence

The court stated that the evidence presented was not reliable enough to conclude that Suni alone, or along with Vijeesh, reached Laksyah on February 22, 2017. While the prosecution claimed that Suni’s attempts to make contact prior to his arrest indicated a criminal conspiracy, the court found this argument unsupported by conclusive proof.

Witness testimony raises concerns.

A key witness, an employee at Laksyah, initially testified that no unusual incident had occurred at the store. However, after his statement was recorded again by the police, he later deposed in line with the prosecution’s version. The court noted that the prosecution’s explanation for re-examining the witness, following revelations by filmmaker Balachandra Kumar, appeared doubtful. The witness later stated that his revised testimony was given under pressure.

Doubts over alleged transfer of visual evidence

The court also rejected the prosecution’s claim that Suni copied the assault visuals onto multiple devices, including a memory card. According to the case record, the visuals were copied only to a pen drive, which was later seized by the police. Given this, the court observed that there was no possibility of handing over a memory card containing the visuals at Laksyah. As a result, the alleged entrustment of such material at the store appeared implausible.

Court highlights inconsistencies in prosecution narrative.

In its conclusion, the court stated that the purpose of Suni’s visit to Laksyah varied across witness accounts and prosecution claims . These inconsistencies, the judgment noted, significantly undermined the prosecution’s version of events.