The Special Investigation Team (SIT) which probed the 2017 actor rape case did not cite Sreelakshmi, a woman whom Pulsar Suni, the convict, contacted and messaged even while he was travelling with the survivor after abducting her, as a witness, according to the judgment in the case.
In her judgment, Special Judge Honey M. Varghese, who acquitted actor Dileep in the case and convicted six others, observed that the fact that Sreelakshmi was not cited as a witness “cast doubt in the prosecution case, especially considering the claim of the accused that the visuals were captured as part of a quotation at the instance of a lady.”
Sreelakshmi was also found sending messages to Suni even thirty minutes before the alleged recording of the video. She also made calls to Suni after his arrest on February 23, the court found.
Six calls, seven messages
The judge noted that there were incoming messages from Sreelakshmi to Suni’s phone till 3.44 p.m. on February 17, 2017, the date of the commission of the offence. She also made six calls to Suni on the day between 6.22 p.m. and 7.59 p.m. Suni also received seven messages from Sreelakshmi between 9.03 p.m. and 9.56 p.m. on the day of the offence. The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory showed that videos were captured on February 17, 2017, between 10.30 p.m. and 10.48 p.m. The last message from Sreelakshmi was received at 9.56 p.m., which was nearly half an hour before the recording of the visuals, the court found out.
The court found that Suni made calls and messages to Sreelakshmi even while travelling with the victim. Yet, the SIT did not cite her as a witness, and the Call Data Record (CDR) and her location details were not produced, and she was not cited as a witness. As the person who contacted the accused immediately before the alleged commission of the offence, she could have shed more light on the incident. She would also have known about the alleged association of Suni and Mr. Dileep, the court noted.
The prosecution’s case was that both Suni and Sreelakshmi maintained a thick relationship. Hence, she would also have known about the alleged association of Suni and Mr. Dileep, the court pointed out.
The prosecution suppressed the contents in the phone of Sreelakshmi, claiming that it would affect her privacy. It did not bring out the details of the contents of the phone, claiming that it would affect her privacy. The FSL report showed that Sreelakshmi used another mobile phone. However, the CDR and location details of the second number were also not produced before the court, the judgment noted.
No reason provided
The judge noted that no materials were available before the court to see whether she was interrogated by the police. No reason was also provided for not citing her as a witness.
The absence of her interrogation and failure to bring as evidence the report of FSL in the examination of her phone, and the omission to cite her as a witness despite Suni’s statement that the quotation was given by a woman, cast serious doubt about the prosecution’s case that the humiliation of the victim was based on a quotation from Dileep, the court concluded.
Published – December 14, 2025 08:35 pm IST
