The Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, will pronounce the verdict in the infamous 2017 actress abduction and sexual assault case— in which Malayalam actor Dileep is arrayed as the eighth accused—on December 8. The survivor, a popular film actress at the time, was allegedly sexually assaulted in a moving car, and Dileep is accused of hatching the criminal conspiracy behind the crime.
The Incident
The actor was abducted on February 17, 2017, while travelling to Kochi. She was sexually assaulted in a moving vehicle by a gang led by Pulsar Suni, and the assault was filmed for blackmail. She filed a First Information Report (FIR) the following day—a rare act of defiance in an industry where silence had long been normalised.
Just three days after the assault, the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (AMMA) organised a meeting that brought together more than 200 figures from the film industry, including Mammootty, Mohanlal, and Manju Warrier, to publicly condemn the crime and express support for the survivor. While framed as a unified stand against violence against women, the gathering soon became a flashpoint. During the event, Manju Warrier—Dileep’s former wife—openly alluded to a “conspiracy” behind the attack. Her remarks, delivered amid emotional appeals, later appeared prescient as the investigation began to point towards Dileep’s alleged role in masterminding the crime as an act of revenge.
While in judicial custody, Pulsar Suni allegedly smuggled out a handwritten letter from Aluva Sub-Jail. The letter contained statements suggesting that Dileep had issued a “quotation” for the attack and promised ₹1.5 crore for its execution. This letter became the immediate trigger for Dileep’s arrest on July 10, 2017.
The prosecution subsequently built its case on the theory that Dileep was the mastermind who planned and financed the abduction and sexual assault as an act of personal vengeance. Long-standing animosity towards the survivor was cited as the motive. According to the prosecution, the survivor played a key role in informing Manju Warrier about Dileep’s extra-marital relationship with actor Kavya Madhavan, now Dileep’s wife. The prosecution argues that Dileep blamed the survivor for the breakdown of his family and allegedly harboured resentment over several years.
Arrest and trial
Dileep remained 83 days in jail. His first two attempts at getting bail were rejected by the Kerala High Court. But in October 2017, the court finally granted him bail.
Soon after his arrest, Dileep approached the Supreme Court seeking access to the memory card that contained video footage of the assault. Although he was not allowed a copy of the memory card, the Court permitted him to view its contents, subject to certain conditions, to help him prepare his defence.
Later, allegations emerged that the memory card had been illegally accessed while it was in the custody of the trial court.
After Dileep was granted bail, the prosecution then attempted to cancel the same, citing attempts to intimidate and tamper with witnesses and evidence. However, these attempts were dismissed by both the trial court and the Kerala High Court.
As the trial was going on, film director Balachandra Kumar, a former acquaintance of Dileep, came up with the revelation that Dileep had received a copy of the assault visuals.
Later, the Crime Branch registered a fresh case against actor Dileep and five others based on the statement of Kumar that the former had allegedly conspired to kill the officers who probed the abduction and rape incident. Kumar was also named as a witness in the case and examined as a prosecution witness in the trial. However, Kumar died of renal ailments at a private hospital in Chengannur in December 2024.
Notably, at one point, the survivor had to even approach the the Kerala High Court seeking a court-monitored probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the alleged unauthorised access to the memory card that contains the graphic visuals of the assault.
The State Forensic Science Lab had apparently found that the memory card was illegally accessed three times while it was in the custody of the court: twice in 2018 and once in 2021. It was also found that the hash value of the device had changed, which suggested the contents in the memory card may have been altered or downloaded. This led the Kerala High Court to pass a slew of guidelines for law enforcement agencies, courts and other authorities to ensure protection of the digital evidence containing sexually explicit materials.
Notably, in this context, the court openly lamented that the system had failed to protect the survivor and that the emotional and psychological harm being suffered by the victim is beyond imagination.
Demands and counter-demands
In 2018, Dileep moved the High Court seeking a transfer of the investigation to the CBI, but the plea was dismissed by a single judge. He appealed the decision in 2019, and the matter remained pending for six years. In 2025, Dileep renewed his push for a CBI probe. However, in April this year, a division bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, bringing the issue to a close.
The trial phase also saw many twists and turns. The entire trial was conducted in camera behind closed doors. In 2019, after the survivor requested a female judge, the case was assigned to then Additional Special Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese. A year later, the prosecution sought to transfer the trial to another judge, citing that the conduct of the Additional Sessions Court was highly biased and that the Judge made certain derogatory remarks and allegations against the prosecution. However, the Kerala High Court, and later the Supreme Court, dismissed the petitions to transfer the trial to another judge.
Witnesses and Hostiles
As part of the trial, 261 witnesses—many of them from the film industry—were examined. Twenty-eight witnesses, including actors Siddique, Edavela Babu, Bhama, and Bindu Panicker, turned hostile during the proceedings. Some key witnesses, including Balachandra Kumar, died before the verdict could be delivered.
Another crucial witness to pass away during this period was senior Congress leader and former Thrikkakara MLA P. T. Thomas. He played a pivotal role in the immediate aftermath of the assault. As one of the first outsiders to reach the survivor, Thomas provided emotional support, security, and encouragement, which proved instrumental in her decision to file a First Information Report (FIR) the very next day. His intervention helped her overcome the initial shock and fear, reducing the likelihood of retraction under pressure.
P. T. Thomas died in 2021 before he could be fully cross-examined or complete his testimony. Recently, his widow and Thrikkakara MLA Uma Thomas stated that there had been attempts to influence him and that he faced intense pressure to refrain from giving evidence. She said he remained firm despite these efforts, telling those who approached him that he would speak “nothing more and nothing less—only the truth” in the case.
Impact on the film world and Beyond
The actor abduction and sexual assault case proved to be a seismic shock to the Malayalam film industry. It directly led to the formation and wider visibility of groups such as the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC). Conversations about consent, workplace safety, gendered power, and the culture of silence moved from activist spaces into mainstream public discourse.
As a direct outcome of the case, the Kerala government appointed a committee headed by Justice K. Hema on July 1, 2017, to study the challenges faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The committee submitted its report on December 31, 2019. More than ₹1 crore was spent on the committee’s functioning alone. However, successive Pinarayi Vijayan-led governments faced allegations of withholding the report due to pressure from powerful interests within and beyond the industry.
A redacted version of the report was finally made public in August 2024 following sustained follow-up through Right to Information (RTI) requests. Its release triggered a fresh wave of #MeToo allegations in Malayalam cinema, with women across the industry publicly naming alleged perpetrators.
CPI(M) MLA and actor Mukesh, actor Siddique—who had turned hostile in the abduction case—and actor Baburaj were among the prominent figures to face allegations during this phase. On August 27, 2024, the entire 2024–2027 executive committee of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (AMMA) resigned en masse on what it termed “moral grounds,” after several members were accused.
The shocking actor abduction case also jolted Kerala’s collective consciousness, tearing through several comforting myths the society once held. Kerala prides itself on literacy, progressive politics, strong women’s movements, and a morally alert public culture. The crime shattered the belief that “this cannot happen here.” It demonstrated that violence against women is not confined to private or marginal spaces, but can strike a powerful public figure on a busy road, even in a state that often celebrates its social development.
The case made sexual violence intimate, structural, and impossible to deny. It posed an uncomfortable question: if this can happen to someone famous, protected, and visible, what does safety truly mean for ordinary women?
The shock deepened with the emergence of allegations about the key conspirator behind the crime. When a prominent male superstar—long seen as a “boy-next-door” figure by Kerala audiences—was accused of masterminding the attack, it forced a reckoning with the power structures of the Malayalam film industry. Long celebrated for its artistic legacy, the industry’s feudal underside came sharply into focus, marked by informal hierarchies, loyalty networks, enforced silence, and the ease with which influence can bend justice.
