Kerala’s Directorate of Prosecution has advised the state government that trial court Judge Honey M Varghese was not qualified to pronounce the December 8 verdict in the 2017 Kerala actor assault case, citing her alleged involvement in the controversy over illegal access to a memory card containing assault visuals, even as the state considers appealing actor Dileep’s acquittal and the conviction of six co-accused to the High Court.


Background: A High-Profile Case and a Divisive Verdict

The case stems from the abduction and sexual assault of a prominent Malayalam female actor in a moving vehicle in Kochi in February 2017. A group allegedly led by driver Sunil Kumar, known as “Pulsar” Suni, is accused of recording the assault on a memory card, which later became key digital evidence in the prosecution’s case.

On December 8, 2023, Special Court Judge Honey M Varghese delivered a voluminous judgement running to more than 1,700 pages. In it, the court acquitted Malayalam actor Dileep of charges that he conspired to abduct and sexually assault his colleague, while convicting six others, including Pulsar Suni, of gang rape and related offences and sentencing them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The verdict immediately sparked intense public debate in Kerala and across India, given the high-profile nature of the accused and survivor and the broader implications for how the criminal justice system handles cases of sexual violence against women in the film industry. Supporters of the survivor, women’s rights activists, and sections of the film fraternity have called for an appeal, while Dileep’s supporters have treated the acquittal as vindication of his stance that he was framed.


According to legal advice submitted to the Kerala government, the Directorate of Prosecution has argued that Judge Honey M Varghese should have been disqualified from hearing and deciding the trial, due to her alleged involvement in issues surrounding illegal access to the memory card that stored the assault visuals. The advice, reported by The News Minute, forms part of the state’s internal deliberations on whether and how to challenge the trial court verdict in the Kerala High Court.

The opinion references Section 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which bars a judge or magistrate from presiding over a case in which they are “personally interested” or are a party. While Judge Honey is not a party to the actor assault prosecution itself, the Directorate has reportedly argued that her role, even at a supervisory level, in matters connected to the alleged illegal access of the memory card places her in a position that could compromise the appearance of impartiality.

The advice document also incorporates a note by advocate Aja Kumar, who served as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) in the case. This note, according to sources cited in media reports, supports the view that the trial court’s handling of the memory card controversy raises substantial legal questions that could form grounds of appeal, both on the merits of the acquittal and on procedural fairness.


The Memory Card Dispute: Hash Values, Access, and Court Custody

The memory card that allegedly recorded the assault has been at the centre of one of the most contentious aspects of the trial. The card reached the court’s custody in February 2017, shortly after the crime, and was expected to remain sealed and secure as core digital evidence. Over time, the prosecution and the survivor raised concerns that the card had been accessed without authorisation while under court custody.

According to the prosecution’s submissions, forensic examinations later indicated that the hash value of the memory card had changed on at least three occasions, one of which allegedly occurred while the card was in Judge Honey’s court. Hash values are unique digital signatures used to verify that electronic evidence has not been altered. A change in a device-level hash can signal that data has been accessed, copied, or altered, though it does not always prove tampering with individual files.

The trial judgement devoted more than 80 pages to analysing multiple forensic reports on the memory card, including tests conducted by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) over several years. The court ultimately concluded that while the overall hash value of the memory card had changed, the individual hash values of the eight video clips that purportedly captured the assault remained unchanged, leading the court to reason that the visuals themselves had not been compromised.

Critics of the judgement, including members of the prosecution team, contend that this framing conflated “tampering” with “illegal access.” They argue that while they did not necessarily allege alterations to the assault videos themselves, they did allege unauthorised access to the card while it was supposed to be sealed, which, they say, was not adequately addressed.

A microSD memory card similar to the digital storage device at the centre of disputes over hash values and alleged illegal access in the Kerala actor assault case. Image: Wikimedia Commons / Public domain.

Conflicting Accounts: Forensic Expert vs Trial Court

A key point of contention arises from the testimony of Dr Sunil S P, the forensic expert who created the forensic image of the memory card. According to prosecution accounts and media reports, Dr Sunil stated that on January 10, 2020, he detected a change in the memory card’s hash value and immediately informed the Presiding Officer, Judge Honey, via telephone. Acting, he says, on her oral instructions, he conducted a second examination on January 29, 2020, and submitted both reports to the court.

In the final judgement, however, Judge Honey is reported to have implied that she received no such call, and questioned why the expert conducted a second examination without a written direction from the court. The judgement also cast doubt on some of Dr Sunil’s statements, effectively discrediting portions of his account regarding how and when the change in hash value was brought to the court’s attention.

The Directorate of Prosecution’s advice to the government reportedly cites this divergence as significant. From the prosecution’s perspective, if the Presiding Officer had been informed of a hash value change in early 2020, more than two years before the case was reopened in light of whistleblower allegations and fresh investigative steps, then questions arise about what actions the court took—or did not take—to secure the evidence and notify the parties.

These questions, in the prosecution’s view, go beyond a technical dispute and touch on the neutrality required of a presiding judge in a criminal trial, especially in a sensitive sexual assault case where the integrity of digital evidence is critical to the outcome.


Whistleblower Revelations, Defence Narrative, and Possible Appeal

The memory card controversy later intersected with wider allegations made by whistleblower Balachandrakumar, who in 2021 came forward with claims that he had heard discussions involving Dileep and others about influencing witnesses and possibly accessing sensitive material. Following these revelations, investigating officer Baiju Paulose sought to reopen the investigation, and in January 2022 the FSL reports related to the memory card were seized by the probe team.

The trial court’s judgement references these developments and, according to reports, suggests that the investigating officer used the FSL documents to allege that a confidential document had been found on Dileep’s phone, thereby implying that the visuals or related court documents had leaked from judicial custody. The court framed this as being in line with the defence narrative that Dileep was framed by a combination of investigating officers, a senior police official, and a politician.

The defence has consistently argued that Dileep was the victim of a conspiracy, insisting that he had no role in the attack and that the case against him was driven by rivalries within the film industry and alleged animosity from law-enforcement officials. Supporters of this view point to the court’s acquittal as confirmation that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other side, the survivor, her legal team, and many women’s rights advocates have expressed dissatisfaction with the acquittal and the court’s handling of the memory card issue. They argue that unresolved questions about illegal access, changes in hash values, and the alleged prior knowledge of the court undermine confidence in the fairness of the proceedings.

Whether and how these competing narratives will be assessed in appellate proceedings remains to be seen. As of early 2026, the state government, guided by the Directorate of Prosecution’s opinion, is expected to move the Kerala High Court, where the survivor has also indicated she may pursue legal remedies.


Central to the prosecution’s advice is Section 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states that no judge or magistrate “shall try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party or personally interested.” Indian courts have generally interpreted this provision to protect both actual impartiality and the public perception of impartiality in the judiciary.

In practice, judges have recused themselves in situations where they have prior involvement in key aspects of a case, or where they could be called as a witness, or where their actions may come under scrutiny. The Directorate of Prosecution appears to argue that because allegations have been raised about actions taken in the court of Judge Honey—particularly concerning the memory card’s alleged illegal access—she could be viewed as having a personal stake in defending those actions, thus falling within the scope of Section 479.

At the trial stage, the survivor filed multiple petitions before the Kerala High Court seeking a change of judge on the grounds of these concerns. The High Court dismissed those petitions, effectively permitting the trial to continue before the same judge. Supporters of that decision argue that mere allegations, without conclusive proof of wrongdoing, are not sufficient to force recusal, particularly in complex, long-running trials where judicial continuity can be important.

Legal experts observing the case are divided. Some argue that, in sensitive cases involving sexual offences and high-stakes digital evidence, the threshold for apparent bias should be kept low to preserve public confidence, while others caution that frequent recusals based on contested allegations could encourage tactical litigation and delay justice.



What Comes Next

The Kerala actor assault case now straddles two fronts: the criminal liability of the accused, including Dileep, and the institutional questions about how courts handle sensitive digital evidence and potential conflicts of interest. The Directorate of Prosecution’s advice, focused on Section 479 CrPC and the alleged illegal access of the memory card, suggests that the legal battle is far from over.

Any appeal before the Kerala High Court is expected to scrutinise not only the factual findings that led to Dileep’s acquittal and the conviction of the co-accused, but also the procedural framework within which the trial was conducted, including the role of the presiding judge. The outcome may have implications that extend beyond this single case, potentially influencing how Indian courts approach digital evidence security, judicial recusals, and survivor confidence in high-profile sexual assault trials.