Actor rape case convicts get 20 years rigorous imprisonment

The six convicts in the 2017 actor rape case were on Friday awarded life imprisonment for 20 years each on two counts for gang rape (IPC 376 D) and criminal conspiracy [IPC 120 (b)] among other punishments.

However, all the punishments of the convicts will run concurrently and they will have to serve a jail term of 20 years. The number of days they were imprisoned during the pendency of the trial will be deducted from the 20-year jail term, the court announced.

Ernakulam Principal Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese awarded the punishments for the convicts on Friday.

The convicts N.S. Sunil, aka ‘Pulsar’ Suni, Martin, Manikandan, Vijeesh, Salim, and Pradeep were awarded the punishment after hearing them and their lawyers on the day.

The court had earlier acquitted actor Dileep and three others in the case. The judicial justification for acquitting Mr. Dileep would be known when the judgment is available in the public domain.

All six accused were awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each for assault or use of criminal force to a woman with the intent to disrobe her and simple imprisonment of one year each for wrongful confinement.

Sunil was awarded another punishment of rigorous imprisonment of three years under Section 66E (for violation of privacy) of the Information Technology (IT) Act and another rigorous imprisonment of five years under Section 67A (punishment for publishing or transferring obscene materials in electronic form) under the IT Act.

Martin, the second convict, was given a rigorous imprisonment of three years for causing the disappearance of evidence.

All the accused were slapped with a fine in the case. An amount of ₹5 lakh shall be paid to the survivor in the event of the fine being realised, the court directed.

While awarding the punishment, the court, according to the judge, considered the aspects namely the concepts of justice, the nature of the crime, and the chances for reformation of the convicts, along with the impact the act had left on the dignity of women.

The act violated her right to safety, created fear and humiliation and pushed her into shame and helplessness. It also caused psychological trauma and mental distress to the victim, who was subjected to the attack while she was travelling to the house of her friend without anticipating any untoward incident, the court noted.

At the same time, the court also considered the mitigating circumstances in the case, including the age of the accused, their family conditions, and also the fact that no criminal antecedents were pending against any of the convicts except the first accused in deciding the quantum of the punishment. All the convicts were below the age of 40 years.

The court also recollected the Supreme Court’s observations in the Nirbhaya case that the crimes against women intentionally affected her self-esteem and dignity, and also degraded the pace of societal development.

Weighing the mitigating and attending circumstances, the court arrived at the conclusion that no circumstances warranting the maximum punishment existed in the case.