The acquittal of actor Dileep and three other accused in the sensational Kerala actor rape and abduction case by a trial court has reignited a familiar and unsettling question in India’s criminal justice discourse: Will this case, like the Jessica Lal murder, find a second life through public outrage and appellate intervention?
On December 8, 2025, Ernakulam District and Sessions court judge Honey M Varghese convicted six and acquitted four others, including actor Dileep—alleged by the prosecution to be the main conspirator behind the abduction and sexual assault of a prominent Malayalam actress in 2017—citing lack of conclusive evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies.
The verdict has drawn sharp reactions from women’s rights groups, legal experts and sections of the public, many of whom see troubling parallels with the 2006 trial court acquittal in the Jessica Lal murder case.
In February 2006, Manu Sharma, son of influential politician, was acquitted in the Jessica Lal murder case despite eyewitness accounts placing him at the scene of the crime.
The verdict triggered unprecedented public protests in Delhi, galvanised media scrutiny and eventually led the Delhi High Court to reopen the case on a fast-track basis. Within months, the High Court overturned the acquittal and sentenced Sharma and his friends to life imprisonment in 2006. Manu Sharma served jail sentence for nearly 15 years and was released in 2020 for “satisfactory jail conduct.”
Legal observers say the Kerala actor assault case verdict risks being seen through the same lens—where alleged power, influence and procedural lapses overshadow the pursuit of justice. “There is a public debate going on following the verdict. The prosecution in the case has officially approached the government submitting that the judge has made a biased approach. If the prosecution could convince the Kerala High Court, the case could be reopened on a fast track basis,” said a senior lawyer.
The 2017 assault case had been closely followed nationwide, not only because of the brutal nature of the crime but also due to the alleged involvement of one of Malayalam cinema’s most influential stars. The prosecution had argued that Dileep orchestrated the crime to seek revenge against the survivor, while the defence maintained that the case was built on conjecture and circumstantial evidence.
The trial court, in its verdict, noted inconsistencies in digital evidence, gaps in the prosecution’s narrative and insufficient corroboration to establish a criminal conspiracy.
Following the verdict, social media platforms were flooded with expressions of anger and disappointment, with many users contending that a trial court acquittal need not be the final word. The survivor has already expressed her resentment that she never expected justice from the trial court.
Senior advocates point out that, as in the Jessica Lal case, the burden now shifts to the appellate courts. “An acquittal is not an exoneration for all time,” a former prosecutor said. “If there are legal infirmities in the judgment, the High Court has the power—and the duty—to reappreciate evidence.”
The Jessica Lal case ultimately became a landmark moment in India, demonstrating how sustained public pressure, media attention and judicial resolve could correct a miscarriage of justice. It also inspired the acclaimed film “No One Killed Jessica”, which cemented the case in popular memory as a symbol of resistance against impunity.
Whether the Kerala actor assault case will follow a similar trajectory remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the verdict has reopened a big conversation about witness hostility, investigative lapses and the influence of power within the justice system—issues that remain as relevant today as they were over two decades ago when Jessica Lal was shot dead for refusing to serve a drink to Manu Sharma, the son of a powerful and influential politician in Delhi.
