The Kerala High Court on Thursday rejected a request to suspend the 20‑year prison term imposed on Martin Antony, the driver of the vehicle used in the 2017 abduction and rape of a well‑known Malayalam actress.
Court rejects driver’s claim of limited involvement
Antony appealed the conviction handed down by a Sessions Court, arguing that he was merely the driver and had no knowledge of the conspiracy that led to the assault. A Division Bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K.V. Jayakumar found no merit in that argument. In their order, the judges wrote, “We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that he was only a mere driver in the MO9 vehicle, with no active role in the commission of the crime or motive. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant had assisted and aided the commission of the crime, and he had shared the common intention with all the conspirators.”
The bench also noted that Antony had violated bail conditions by making defamatory statements about the survivor while the case was pending. The judges emphasized that the crime demonstrated “an extraordinary degree of criminal depravity” and cited the broader public interest in preserving confidence in the criminal‑justice system.
Related: Telegram ruling forces every Indian platform to seek safe harbour
Background of the 2017 case
The Ernakulam trial court found six men guilty of kidnapping, raping, and recording the assault on the actress. Alongside Antony, the convictions included Sunil N.S. (known as Pulsar Suni), Manikandan B., Vijeesh V.P., Salim H. (alias Vadival Salim), and Pradeep. The charges covered a range of offences under the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy (120B), wrongful confinement (342), kidnapping (366), gang rape (376D), and related offenses such as the use of force to outrage modesty (354) and to disrobe a woman (354B). Antony also faced conviction under Section 201 for tampering with evidence.
All six were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. The primary accused, Pulsar Suni, was alleged to have coordinated the plot with actor Dileep, who was later acquitted of conspiracy charges. The decision to uphold the sentence reflects the seriousness with which the judiciary views crimes that threaten women’s safety and dignity.
While the appeals process continues, the High Court’s refusal to stay the sentence sends a clear message that participation, even in a supporting role, will not be excused lightly.
Related: Law Firms Shun Even Top Candidates
From a practical standpoint, the ruling makes clear that individuals who facilitate violent crimes—even as drivers—can be held liable for the full extent of the wrongdoing. This may influence how future cases involving logistical support are prosecuted, ensuring that those who provide the means for such offenses are not seen as peripheral.
Legal representation and next steps
Antony was represented by advocates Alex Joseph and Nisha K. Peter. The survivor’s interests were defended by lawyer Vrinda Grover, while Special Public Prosecutor V. Ajakumar appeared for the state. The Division Bench has already turned down similar suspension pleas from co‑accused Suni, Salim, and Pradeep.
With the appeal pending, the six convicted men remain in custody pending any further orders from the High Court. The case continues to draw public attention, reflecting ongoing concerns about gender‑based violence and the accountability of all parties involved in such crimes.
