Is the Sentence in the Actor Assault Case Truly Just?

Click to start listening
Is the Sentence in the Actor Assault Case Truly Just?

Synopsis

Public Prosecutor Ajakumar deems the recent sentence in the actor assault case as inadequate, advocating for a harsher penalty. With growing public concern, the State Law Minister announces plans for an appeal to ensure justice is served effectively.

Key Takeaways

  • The Public Prosecutor criticized the sentence as insufficient for the crime's severity.
  • The case has raised public concerns about the justice system's effectiveness.
  • Plans for an appeal to enforce a harsher penalty are underway.

Kochi, Dec 12 (NationPress) Public Prosecutor Ajakumar expressed his profound disappointment regarding the sentence in the widely publicized actor assault case, labeling the punishment issued by the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court as “incomplete justice”. He cautioned that this ruling might convey a misleading message to society.

In a media briefing following the verdict, Ajakumar asserted that the prosecution had faced “no setback”, yet deemed the penalties imposed on the six convicts as insufficient given the serious nature of the crime.

He indicated that he would advise the State government to file an appeal for a more stringent sentence.

“The sentence is not an act of kindness from the court; rather, it is a right of the prosecution,”

he emphasized, noting that numerous challenges encountered by the prosecution during the trial would be addressed “in appropriate forums.”

Earlier in the day, in a significant ruling, Principal Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese sentenced six defendants, including the main perpetrator Pulsar Suni, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for gang rape.

Suni (N.S. Sunil) alongside co-accused Martin Antony, B. Manikandan, V.P. Vijeesh, H. Salim, and Pradeep were found guilty under gang-rape laws, which stipulate a minimum punishment of 20 years.

The court clarified that the time the convicts had already spent as undertrial prisoners would be deducted from the total sentence.

In delivering the sentence, the judge referenced mitigating factors such as the convicts' ages and family circumstances, along with the fact that some had no previous criminal records.

Each convict was also ordered to pay a fine of Rs 50,000; failure to comply would result in an additional year of imprisonment.

However, Ajakumar insisted that the sentence lacked the deterrent effect that such a heinous crime necessitates.

His comments reflect the increasing unease among certain public sectors and supporters of the survivor, who argue that this case required more robust judicial action to maintain public trust in the justice system.

State Law Minister P. Rajeeve announced that the government plans to appeal the verdict in the Kerala High Court for further examination and possible reconsideration.

Point of View

It is crucial to recognize that justice is not merely about punishment, but about societal trust. The public's apprehension reflects a demand for a justice system that is both fair and firm. This case underscores the need for a legal framework that conveys a strong deterrent message against severe crimes.
NationPress
14/12/2025

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the verdict in the actor assault case?
The Principal Sessions Court sentenced six individuals, including the main defendant, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for gang rape.
Why did the Public Prosecutor call the sentence 'incomplete justice'?
Public Prosecutor Ajakumar expressed dissatisfaction with the sentence, believing it fails to reflect the severity of the crime and might send a misleading message to society.
Will there be an appeal against the verdict?
Yes, the State Law Minister P. Rajeeve announced plans to appeal the decision in the Kerala High Court for further review.
Nation Press