Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in Martin Antony v. State of Kerala (Crl. M.A. No. 1 of 2026 in Crl. A. No. 4 of 2026), declined to suspend the 20-year sentence imposed on one of the convicts in the widely reported 2017 actress assault case. A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar held that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify suspension of the sentence pending disposal of the criminal appeal.

The applicant, Martin Antony, was the second accused in the case and one among six persons convicted by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. He challenged the conviction and sought suspension of his sentence during the pendency of his appeal, contending that his role in the offence had been exaggerated and that he was merely the driver of the vehicle used during the incident. The State and the survivor opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had actively facilitated the commission of the offence and had violated bail conditions during the trial.

The High Court was called upon to determine whether the facts and circumstances justified granting the extraordinary relief of suspension of sentence in a case involving a grave offence with significant societal impact.

Arguments of the Parties:

The applicant contended that he had no active role in the commission of the offence and had been implicated only because he was assigned to drive the vehicle on the day of the incident. It was argued that he neither participated in the assault nor remained inside the vehicle when the offence was committed. According to the defence, even the survivor had not specifically attributed any direct act of assault to him. The applicant further submitted that he had himself been assaulted by the other accused and forcibly removed from the vehicle, demonstrating that he was unaware of the criminal acts that followed. It was also pointed out that he had already undergone approximately five and a half years of imprisonment out of the twenty-year sentence. The defence additionally argued that since the conspiracy allegations against another accused had not been proved, a substantial part of the prosecution’s case had weakened.

The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the application, submitting that the applicant played a crucial role in facilitating the offence. It was argued that evidence established continuous communication between the applicant and the principal accused before and during the incident. The prosecution relied upon the survivor’s testimony, which described the applicant’s conduct in facilitating the crime. It was further submitted that after the incident, the applicant attempted to flee, destroyed evidence by disposing of his SIM card, and later violated bail conditions by allegedly publishing defamatory material against the survivor, leading to registration of another criminal case. The prosecution also informed the Court that it had filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence. Counsel appearing for the survivor also opposed suspension of sentence and supported the prosecution’s submissions.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant had failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Bench observed that, at the present stage, no apparent illegality or infirmity had been demonstrated in the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Court.

The Court rejected the contention that the applicant was merely an innocent driver with no knowledge of the offence. On a prima facie assessment of the evidence available on record, the Bench found that the applicant had actively assisted and facilitated the commission of the crime and had shared the common intention of the conspirators. The Court noted that the prosecution materials indicated continuous communication between the applicant and the principal accused and that the survivor had specifically deposed regarding his role in facilitating the offence.

The Bench also relied upon the survivor’s testimony that the applicant remained on the phone while driving the vehicle and enabled the entry of the other accused into it. These circumstances, according to the Court, prima facie demonstrated that the applicant’s involvement extended beyond that of a mere driver and supported the finding that he had aided the commission of the offence.

The Court further considered the applicant’s conduct after the incident. It took note of the prosecution’s allegations that he attempted to escape after the crime, destroyed material evidence by flushing his SIM card, and subsequently violated bail conditions by allegedly publishing defamatory videos concerning the survivor. The existence of another criminal case registered against him while he was on bail was also treated as a relevant factor against granting discretionary relief.

Emphasising the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, and the sentence imposed by the trial court, the High Court observed that suspension of sentence cannot be granted as a matter of routine. The Bench held that broader considerations such as public interest, societal impact, and maintaining confidence in the administration of criminal justice must also guide the exercise of judicial discretion in such serious criminal cases.

The Court concluded that no exceptional circumstance existed to justify suspension of the sentence. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was directed to continue undergoing the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court during the pendency of his appeal.

The order is consistent with the High Court’s earlier decisions refusing suspension of sentence to other convicted accused in the same case. It reinforces the principle that in serious offences involving substantial evidence and grave societal consequences, appellate courts will exercise the power to suspend sentence with considerable restraint, particularly where the conduct of the convict and the nature of the offence weigh against the grant of such relief.