Actor rape case convict seeks cancellation of his sentence

Martin Antony, second convict in the 2017 actor rape case, has challenged his conviction in the case by arguing that he, like actor Dileep, who was acquitted in the case, had not committed any sexual assault and was not present in the vehicle when the rape took place.

In his appeal filed before the Kerala High Court, Martin contended that the trial court’s decision to let off Mr. Dileep, the eighth accused, shall also be extended to him as he was on the same footing as Mr. Dileep.

“When two accused persons involved in a crime are identically situated, the trial court is required to give identical treatment in appreciation of evidence for convicting/ acquitting them. A lengthy, meticulous/ microscopic appreciation of evidence in detail with a sole purpose for ensuring the acquittal of one and a narrow appreciation of evidence against another with the sole purpose for his conviction cannot be justified. Hence, the conviction and sentence of Antony is liable to be set aside,” argued his counsel Alex Joseph.

The prosecution had no case that both Martin and Mr. Dileep sexually assaulted the victim and were present at the time of the sexual assault. Unlike the other accused, who were convicted by the trial court, Martin was not on the vehicle in which the rape was committed. The allegation levelled against him and Mr. Dileep was their participation in a conspiracy, he argued.

The prosecution had alleged that Martin conspired with the other accused at the house of one Nelson and acted in pursuance of the said conspiracy and picked the survivor in a vehicle, caused a fake accident with another vehicle and facilitated the abduction and rape. He was also alleged to have destroyed the SIM card of his mobile and thus caused the destruction of evidence. However, the trial court overlooked the evidence regarding his non-involvement and association with other accused, according to the appeal.

The evidence adduced in the case and the impugned judgment categorically showed that there was no contact/call details or earlier connection, association or intimacy among Martin and the other convicts. However, the trial court failed to discuss/appreciate any of the said evidence in its proper context perspective for no reason, he argued.

Martin argued that he was falsely implicated in the case for the reason that he was deputed on the fateful day to pick up the survivor in a vehicle.