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 involving 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 convicting six others, including prime accused Pulsar Suni. Sentencing for the convicted is scheduled for December 12, 2025.

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.

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.

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:

Despite intense media attention and public pressure, Judge Honey conducted the proceedings meticulously and impartially.

Key aspects of her approach included:

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.

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

While her requests were not granted, Judge Honey ensured she could testify fully, demonstrating empathy consistent with her approach in other domestic abuse cases.

Key points of contention included:

Although none resulted in formal findings, public perception of bias persisted during the nearly eight-year trial.

Judge Honey emphasises an evidence-focused approach. In 2022, at a Social Welfare Department event, she stated: “Conviction is not the responsibility of the prosecutor – their responsibility is to society.”

Her courtroom style combines firmness with occasional empathy, particularly in cases of domestic abuse, prioritising justice over automatic convictions.

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.

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.”

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