Dileep acquitted: Who is Honey Varghese, the judge behind the actress assault case verdict

In a major development, Malayalam actor Dileep has been acquitted in the 2017 case concerning the abduction and sexual assault of a prominent actress in Kochi.

Ernakulam District and Principal Sessions Judge Honey M Varghese cleared Dileep of all charges, while six others, including the prime accused Pulsar Suni, were convicted. Sentencing for the convicted is scheduled for 12 December 2025. The trial and verdict drew widespread public attention and controversy, with scrutiny over the court’s handling of the case.

Who is Honey M Varghese?

Media reports say Honey Varghese has generally kept a low public profile, but her decisions, courtroom conduct, and personal history came under intense scrutiny during this trial.

She is the daughter of CPI(M) state committee member and former Thrissur district secretary M.M. Varghese. Despite repeated attempts to sway her rulings, higher courts allowed the trial to continue over more than 700 days.

Career and judicial rise

Varghese began her legal career under senior advocate KB Mohandas in Thrissur. She became a District and Sessions Judge in 2012, handling sensitive cases in the CBI Special Court, Ernakulam. In 2019, she was assigned to the high-profile 2017 actor assault trial and was promoted to Principal District and Sessions Judge by late 2021. Her career is marked by her ability to manage complex, high-stakes trials under intense scrutiny.

What was the 2017 case about?

The case involved the abduction and sexual assault of a leading actress, with Dileep accused of orchestrating the crime alongside several others. The trial spanned over 700 days and faced multiple challenges, including:

• Repeated petitions by the survivor to transfer the case citing distress and retraumatisation.

• Resignations of special public prosecutors and changes in legal representation.

• Public scrutiny over potential political influence and courtroom conduct.

How did Judge Honey Varghese handle the trial?

Despite sustained public scrutiny, the trial under Judge Honey M Varghese progressed as per the established legal process.

Key aspects of her approach included:

1. Allowing survivor testimony: The victim was given ample time to present her account, including submitting photographic evidence.

2. Evidence-focused decisions: Judgments were based on facts and documentation rather than assumptions or media narratives.

3. Balancing firmness with empathy: While maintaining procedural rigor, the judge showed sensitivity, particularly in domestic abuse matters.

During the trial, she faced scrutiny over perceived biases, allegations of concealing a 2020 forensic report related to assault footage, and questions of political influence. None of these resulted in formal findings against her.

How did the survivor respond and what were the appeals?

During the trial, the survivor repeatedly petitioned the Kerala High Court and Supreme Court to transfer the case, citing distress.

How did Judge Honey Varghese handle the trial?

The trial of Dileep was conducted under intense media and public scrutiny. While the court maintained that proceedings followed legal procedures, the survivor and prosecution repeatedly raised concerns about the handling of the case.

Survivor testimony: The victim was allowed to present her full account and supporting evidence, including photographs, but described the experience as emotionally taxing.

Evidence and decision-making: The court-based decisions on available records, though the survivor’s legal team argued some investigative findings were inadequately considered.

Sensitive testimony: Extended cross-examinations, participation of over 30 defence lawyers, and procedural handling contributed to survivor distress.

Scrutiny of the judge: Allegations included delays in presenting a 2020 forensic report and concerns of potential external influence. No formal findings were made against Judge Honey Varghese.

Survivor appeals

The survivor petitioned the Kerala High Court and Supreme Court to transfer the trial, citing emotional distress. While these requests were denied, she was eventually able to complete her testimony.

Controversies

Key concerns included:

• Delayed presentation of the 2020 forensic report related to assault footage.

• Prosecution claims of obstacles in presenting evidence.

• Public questions over possible political influence.

Although none led to formal action, these issues persisted throughout the nearly eight-year trial.

Survivor and State concerns

From early on, both the survivor and the State expressed distrust in the trial court and sought the judge’s removal twice.

Allegations included:

• Late-night, multi-day cross-examinations.

• Emotional distress from over 30 defence lawyers present.

• Lack of balance between prosecution and defence.

• Harsh questioning that was not moderated.

Both higher courts declined to intervene. Two Special Public Prosecutors resigned, reportedly due to dissatisfaction with the court’s conduct.

Six accused convicted, Dileep cleared

The court acquitted Dileep and three others, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The six convicted—Pulsar Suni, Martin Antony, B Manikandan, VP Vijeesh, H Saleem, and C Pradeep—were taken to Viyyur Central Prison in Thrissur.

The charges against them included rape, abduction, criminal conspiracy, and outraging modesty, among other offences under the Indian Penal Code.

'Conspiracy claim began with Manju Warrier’

After the verdict, Dileep claimed he was deliberately framed:

“The police team took the prime accused into confidence and then created a story to harm me and destroy my future.”

He also implicated his former wife, Manju Warrier, and a senior police official, accusing parts of the media of spreading “baseless stories.”

Reactions and next steps

Women’s rights groups expressed disappointment over Dileep’s acquittal, while the Kerala government and prosecution plan to appeal, reaffirming support for the survivor.

Retired IPS officer B. Sandhya, who led the investigation, acknowledged the difficulty of proving conspiracy in high-profile cases but praised the probe for addressing systemic issues in the Malayalam film industry.

The case has sparked a wider discussion on judicial transparency, digital evidence handling, and public expectations of judges in sensitive trials.

With inputs from ANI, IANS