Accused No.8 and the Narrow Edge of Law

A Deep, Opinionated, and Jurisprudential Study of the Pulsar Suni Judgment (SC No.118/2018)

1. Introduction: When Criminal Law Refuses to Bend to Public Certainty

The Sessions Court judgment in SC No.118/2018, widely known as the Pulsar Suni case, is destined to occupy a permanent place in Indian criminal law discourse. While the conviction of Accused Nos.1 to 6 was widely accepted as a reaffirmation of judicial commitment to women’s safety and bodily autonomy, the acquittal of Accused No.8 (Gopalakrishnan) unsettled public confidence and reignited a perennial debate: why does criminal law sometimes allow a seemingly culpable person to walk free?

This article takes a deliberately forthright and opinionated, yet legally disciplined position: Accused No.8 did not escape because the law is porous, nor because courts were indulgent, but because criminal law is structurally incapable of punishing suspicion, narrative coherence, or public belief.

The real failure lies elsewhere - in investigation, evidentiary strategy, and prosecutorial execution.

This study is written not as a reactionary piece, but as a long-form analytical resource for lawyers, judges, law students, investigators, and future researchers examining conspiracy law and appellate restraint.

2. The Prosecution Narrative Against Accused No.8: A Case Built on Motive

The prosecution projected Accused No.8 as the intellectual and financial originator of the crime — the man who conceived the offence but remained physically distant from its execution. The alleged motive was personal and emotionally charged: humiliation arising from the victim’s disclosure of an alleged illicit relationship, leading to marital discord, reputational damage, and a desire for revenge.

The prosecution alleged that Accused No.8:

Hatched a criminal conspiracy with Accused No.1
Financed the crime through staged monetary payments
Directed the recording of sexually explicit visuals
Sought not merely physical harm, but long-term character assassination

At a narrative level, the story appeared coherent. At a legal level, however, the case rested almost entirely on inference, association, and motive — elements which criminal law treats with extreme caution.

3. Criminal Conspiracy in Indian Law: A High and Deliberate Threshold

Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized that conspiracy is one of the most dangerous charges in criminal law. It is easy to allege, difficult to disprove, and capable of ensnaring individuals without physical involvement. For this very reason, courts insist on a high evidentiary threshold.

To sustain a conviction for conspiracy, the prosecution must prove:

A clear agreement to commit an illegal act
Conscious and knowing participation
A complete chain of circumstances excluding innocence

In the present case, the Sessions Court correctly distinguished between:

What may appear morally convincing
What is legally demonstrable beyond reasonable doubt

This distinction — often misunderstood by the public — became decisive in Accused No.8’s acquittal.

4. The Narrow Edge of Law: Where the Prosecution Case Collapsed

Accused No.8 did not benefit from a legal loophole. He benefited from the prosecution’s inability to cross the final evidentiary bridge. The Sessions Court refused to convert suspicion into certainty or assumption into proof.

The court declined to:

Treat motive as a substitute for evidence
Infer agreement without independent corroboration
Supply missing links through judicial imagination

This refusal is not judicial weakness — it is constitutional discipline.

5. Opinionated Assessment: The Acquittal Was Inevitable

From a strictly legal perspective, the acquittal of Accused No.8 was not merely justified — it was inevitable. Any other conclusion would have required the court to dilute the standard of proof and compromise foundational principles of criminal justice.

Courts are not instruments of social retribution. They are guardians of due process. When investigation fails to meet legal standards, acquittal is not injustice; it is necessity.

6. Investigation Lapses: The True Fault Lines in the Case

(a) Failure to Establish an Unbroken Financial Trail

The prosecution alleged multiple payments, yet failed to establish a clear, documented, and causally linked financial trail. In modern conspiracy prosecutions, financial forensics is not optional. The absence of irrefutable banking or transactional proof severely weakened the case.

(b) Improper Reliance on Statements of Co-Accused

Despite settled law under the Evidence Act, the investigation relied heavily on statements and alleged confessions of co-accused. Such material is inherently weak and legally insufficient unless independently corroborated.

(c) Absence of Proof of Direction or Command

No evidence demonstrated that Accused No.8 exercised command, supervision, or operational control. Conspiracy cannot be inferred merely because the accused stood to benefit.

(d) Digital Evidence Left Underdeveloped

In an era of ubiquitous digital footprints, the lack of decisive electronic evidence linking Accused No.8 to execution-stage decisions was a glaring omission.

(e) Prosecution Strategy Overvalued Narrative Consistency

The investigation appeared to prioritize storytelling over evidentiary robustness. Criminal courts do not convict on plausibility — they convict on proof.

7. Public Perception vs Criminal Proof: A Necessary Disconnect

The discomfort surrounding this acquittal stems from a fundamental misunderstanding. Public perception operates on probability and intuition. Criminal law operates on certainty.

This disconnect is not a flaw. It is a safeguard against wrongful conviction.

8. Appellate Prospects: Can the Acquittal Be Disturbed?

The scope for interference with an acquittal is deliberately narrow. Appellate courts intervene only where findings are perverse, irrational, or based on complete misreading of evidence.

In the present case:

The Sessions Court delivered a reasoned judgment
No material evidence appears to have been ignored
The prosecution case was inherently incomplete

Unless new evidence or grave legal error is demonstrated, the acquittal of Accused No.8 is likely to withstand scrutiny even before the Supreme Court.

9. Lessons for Investigators, Prosecutors, and Policymakers

This case offers enduring lessons:

High-profile cases demand higher investigative rigor
Conspiracy must be proved, not narrated
Public outrage cannot substitute legal proof
Judicial restraint is a constitutional obligation

10. Conclusion: Escaped on the Edge, Not Through a Gap

Accused No.8 may appear to have escaped, but legally he passed through the narrowest passage criminal law allows — the passage of reasonable doubt.

This judgment will stand as a lasting reminder that when investigation falters, even the strongest suspicion collapses under constitutional scrutiny.

The edge of criminal law is sharp. It protects society from crime, and individuals from conjecture.

Adv. Akhil JK

Disclaimer: This article is a legal and academic analysis. It does not comment on moral culpability or factual innocence.

Accused No.8 and the Narrow Edge of Law