No primary or direct evidence to establish involvement beyond reasonable doubt
Eight years after a crime that shook Kerala's public conscience, the wheels of appellate justice have begun to turn for two of six men convicted in the 2017 abduction and sexual assault of a prominent actress. Salim and Pradeep, sentenced to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment just days ago, have now carried their challenge to the High Court — invoking the enduring legal principle that conviction must rest on evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt. The case, long regarded as a watershed moment for accountability in crimes of sexual violence, now enters a slower, more deliberative chapter, as courts weigh whether the certainty of the trial verdict can survive the scrutiny of appeal.
- Two of six men handed 20-year sentences for gang rape, conspiracy, and abduction have moved swiftly to contest their convictions before Kerala's High Court.
- Their core argument cuts to the heart of criminal justice: they insist no direct or primary evidence was ever placed before the court to prove their involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
- Beyond overturning the verdict, both men are seeking suspension of their sentences and bail — arguing that complex questions of law and fact make prolonged imprisonment pending appeal unjust.
- The High Court identified procedural defects in the petitions before any substantive hearing could begin, signalling that even the path to appeal is not without obstacles.
- With the court now in vacation and corrections still pending, a meaningful hearing on the merits remains weeks away — extending a legal battle that has already spanned nearly a decade.
Two men convicted in the 2017 sexual assault of a Kerala actress have filed separate appeals in the state's High Court, challenging both their guilt and the twenty-year sentences imposed on them just over a week ago. Salim — also known as Vadival Salim — and Pradeep were among six men found guilty by the Principal Sessions Court in Ernakulam on December 12, each receiving identical sentences of rigorous imprisonment along with fines under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The charges included gang rape, criminal conspiracy, abduction, wrongful confinement, and IT Act violations.
In their appeals, both men deny any involvement in the alleged conspiracy or the assault itself, arguing that the prosecution failed to produce direct evidence sufficient to meet the standard of proof required for criminal conviction. They are asking the High Court to set aside the lower court's findings entirely. Alongside the conviction appeals, they have filed separate applications seeking suspension of their sentences and bail, contending that their cases raise substantial legal and factual questions that will take considerable time to resolve.
When the petitions came before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, the court flagged procedural defects in how the appeals had been filed — technical issues raised by the registry concerning their maintainability. Rather than dismissing them outright, the judge granted both men time to correct the errors. The matter has since been deferred until after the court's vacation, meaning any hearing on the substance of their appeals remains some weeks away.
The case has been closely watched across Kerala, seen by many as a defining moment for accountability in cases of sexual violence. The appeals now underway mark the next phase of what is expected to be a prolonged legal contest, with the High Court ultimately tasked with determining whether the trial court's convictions can withstand appellate review.
Two men convicted in the 2017 assault of a Kerala actress have filed separate appeals in the state's High Court, challenging both their convictions and the sentences handed down just over a week earlier. Salim, also known as Vadival Salim, and Pradeep submitted their petitions after the Principal Sessions Court in Ernakulam found them guilty on December 12 and sentenced them each to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The trial court had convicted six men altogether in connection with the case, all receiving identical 20-year sentences along with fines levied under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act. The charges against them included gang rape under Section 376(D) of the IPC, criminal conspiracy, abduction, wrongful confinement, and violations of IT law. The case itself stemmed from the 2017 abduction and sexual assault of the actress, an incident that drew significant public attention and scrutiny.
In their appeals, Salim and Pradeep maintain they played no part in either the alleged conspiracy or the actual commission of the crime. Their legal argument rests on the assertion that the prosecution presented no primary or direct evidence capable of proving their involvement beyond reasonable doubt—the standard required for criminal conviction. They are essentially asking the High Court to overturn the lower court's findings and set them free.
Beyond challenging the convictions themselves, both men have also filed separate applications requesting that their sentences be suspended while their appeals proceed through the court system. They are seeking bail as well, citing what they describe as substantial questions of law and fact that their appeals raise, and pointing to the likelihood that the legal process will take considerable time to resolve.
When the appeals came before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas on Friday, the court identified procedural defects in the way the petitions had been filed—issues flagged by the court's own registry regarding whether the appeals were properly maintainable. Rather than dismissing the cases outright, the judge gave Salim and Pradeep an opportunity to correct these technical problems. The matter was then postponed until after the court's scheduled vacation period, meaning the substantive hearing on the merits of their appeals remains some weeks away.
The case has been closely watched in Kerala legal circles, particularly given the prominence of the victim and the swift conviction of six men in what many viewed as a significant moment for accountability in cases of sexual violence. The appeals now underway represent the next phase in what is likely to be a prolonged legal battle, with the High Court eventually required to weigh whether the trial court's guilty verdicts can withstand appellate scrutiny.
Citas Notables
The prosecution failed to produce even primary or direct evidence to establish their involvement beyond reasonable doubt— Salim and Pradeep's appeal arguments
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would the High Court give them time to fix procedural problems instead of just dismissing the appeals outright?
Because the defects were technical—filing errors, paperwork issues—not substantive weaknesses in their legal arguments. The court wants to ensure that if these men's convictions are ultimately overturned, it happens on the merits, not because they filed their papers wrong.
So they're claiming the prosecution had no real evidence against them?
That's their position, yes. They're saying the conviction rested on circumstantial evidence or testimony that doesn't actually prove they were involved. It's a common appeal strategy, but in a case this high-profile, the trial court clearly found the evidence persuasive enough.
What does it mean that all six were sentenced identically—20 years each?
It suggests the trial court viewed them as equally culpable, whether they were the primary actors or part of the conspiracy. But Salim and Pradeep are arguing they weren't part of it at all, which is a different claim than saying they played a lesser role.
How long might this appeal take?
Years, likely. The High Court will need time to review the trial record, hear arguments, and issue a judgment. That's partly why they're asking for bail—they don't want to sit in prison for years while waiting for justice, even if they believe they're innocent.
Does the fact that they're appealing mean the conviction might be overturned?
Not necessarily. Most convictions survive appellate review. But the High Court will genuinely examine whether the evidence was sufficient, whether proper procedure was followed at trial, and whether the sentence was proportionate. It's a real second look, not a formality.