The Kerala High Court, sitting as a Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, has dismissed the plea filed by Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to him in the 2017 actress rape case. The Bench observed that the applicant had not demonstrated any patent infirmity, manifest illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial court that would justify interference at this interlocutory stage.
The Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, in December 2025 convicted six accused, including the prime accused Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni, and sentenced each to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. The conviction was recorded under Sections 376D, 120B, 342, 354, 354B, 357 and a second reference to Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, together with Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act. The offences related to the sexual assault of a woman actress, the filming and distribution of the act, and associated criminal conspiracy and wrongful confinement.
During the hearing on 9 July 2026, Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar represented the applicant, while Special Public Prosecutor V. Aja Kumar and Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for the survivor. After hearing detailed arguments, the Bench referred to the settled principle that once a conviction is recorded, the rule is imprisonment and bail is the exception. The Court emphasised that the presumption of innocence no longer applies after a finding of guilt, and therefore the appellate court must exercise its discretion to suspend a sentence only when strong, cogent and compelling reasons are shown.
The Bench quoted from earlier judgments to explain that Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts a presumption of correctness on a trial court’s judgment, which can be overturned only on appeal. Consequently, an appellate court considering a suspension request must objectively evaluate the nature and gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the sentence imposed, and the broader implications for public interest, societal confidence and the administration of criminal justice.
Applying these considerations, the Court found that the applicant had failed to point out any exceptional circumstance that would warrant suspending the execution of the sentence. It noted that the evidence on record, including the testimony of the survivor actress, the medical officer who examined her and the statement of actor Lal who met the survivor after the incident, supported the trial court’s findings. The Bench concluded that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge were not unreasonable or perverse to such a degree as to justify granting bail pending appeal.
The Court therefore dismissed the application for suspension of sentence and affirmed that the convict shall remain in custody while the appeal proceeds. The order reinforces the judicial stance that, post‑conviction, liberty is not to be lightly granted and that the appellate court must be satisfied of substantial grounds before interfering with the execution of a sentence.