Trigger Warning: References to rape, gang rape, and rape videos
The full verdict has not yet been released to the public, but this recent acquittal popular Malayalam commercial film actor Dileep, who is accused of alleged criminal conspiracy to kidnap, rape and videotaped the rape of a prominent fellow actor in the Kerala film industry in February 2017, appears to be legally sanctioning both rape as revenge and the creation and distribution of the rape video. After one Test in front of the camera In the nearly eight-year-long trial, Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey Varghese acquitted Dileep and three others of the alleged charges of criminal conspiracy, while she convicted prime accused ‘Pulsar’ Suni and five others of offenses ranging from kidnapping to gang rape and criminal conspiracy.
Initial media analyzes of the acquittal appear to indicate that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations of criminal conspiracy. In a case in which two prosecutors withdrew, 28 prosecution witnesses withdrew hostile witnesses during the trial and several appeals by the plaintiff to withdraw the case Judge Honey Varghese’s court Alleging judicial bias and hostility, the 2017 Actor Assault Case once again brings to the surface the underlying issues plaguing and documented in the Malayalam film industry Report of the Hema Committee, and in the Women in Cinema Collective’s (WCC) efforts to ensure gender dignity and equality in the film industry.
This questionable acquittal should also serve as a wake-up call for Kerala’s civil society and those who want to ‘Stand with Her’ or ‘Avalkkoppam’.
This questionable acquittal should also serve as a wake-up call for Kerala’s civil society and those who want to ‘Stand with Her’ or ‘Avalkkoppam’. The survivor did everything that victims of sexual violence are encouraged to do. She immediately reported it to the police. She made a clear statement. She provided undeniable forensic evidence. She did not settle the case out of court. For eight years, she waited patiently, enduring overwhelming public humiliation, social and cultural aggression, and personal trauma—all to achieve justice. She stood by those who stood by her. She came out and identified herself by face and name. However, with this disturbing acquittal, the long-awaited realization of justice for a victim of gender-based sexual violence appears to have once again been compromised.
Dileep’s dubious acquittal: 28 hostile witnesses and 1 whistleblower
The full verdict is eagerly awaited for several reasons, the most serious of which is to understand: 1) how did the verdict deal with the 28 hostile witnesses who largely upended the prosecution’s case, and 2) who, how and why did the filmed rape record break the chain of judicial remand? The judgment must answer both questions in the document.
FII
Since the acquittal, Dileep has told the media that this is the case falsely accused and blamed in the case, a handful of police officers, his ex-wife Manju Warrier and a senior IPS officer. According to Dileep, they wanted to destroy his career, image and reputation. He threatened legal action against all three. However, Dileep was involved in the crime by the first accused “Pulsar” Suni, the rapist, who wrote to Dileep from prison asking him for financial help in return for his silence. Dileep’s arrest was based on objective and verifiable facts.
What matters most is the motive for the rape. The first defendant, “Pulsar” Suni, had no probable cause or personal vendetta against the survivor to rape her and then film himself raping her, thereby incriminating himself with a crime. Furthermore, when committing the crime, he mentions that he was a contract rapist; He had told the survivor that it was a “quote” rape, meaning he had been hired to rape the survivor.
A more plausible and less twisted motive is therefore the one presented to the police by several witnesses in the first days of the investigation. This motif showed that Dileep harbored a well-known vengeful grudge against the survivor for revealing his extramarital affair with Kavya Madhavan to his then wife Manju Warrier. However, 28 witnesses changed their statements during the trial and became hostile witnesses to the prosecution, disputing their previous statements or claiming that the events they alleged did not occur.
What matters most is the motive for the rape. The first defendant, Pulsar Suni, had no probable cause or personal vendetta against the survivor to rape her and then film himself raping her, thereby incriminating himself with a crime. In addition, when he committed the crime, he mentioned that he was a contract rapist.
When the full judgment is released, it remains to be seen how the judge in the case held the hostile witnesses accountable for their altered statements. Under the Indian Constitution, judges have the legal authority to hold hostile witnesses in contempt of court on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Equally puzzling is the trial court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit Film director Balachandra Kumar’s whistleblowing statement this indicated Dileep’s personal knowledge and involvement in orchestrating the rape, its compensation of 1.5 crores and its filming. Even in the published final judgment, it remains to be seen how the judge justifies her decision to reject Balachandra Kumar’s convincing testimony.
Rape is a patriarchal weapon of power to exert control over a woman for her perceived betrayal, disobedience or autonomy, punishing her body and intimidating her mind. “Pulsar” Suni had no motive to rape the survivor for any of the reasons mentioned above. Kerala police Manju Warrier and a senior police officer had no motive to hatch a plan to get the survivor raped and then frame Dileep for the rape. The motif search scores highly with Dileep. Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is often the correct one.
Dileep acquitted: Filming rape is a crime
The six accused were convicted on charges under the Information Technology (IT) Act under Sections 66(E) and 67(A) for filming and publishing sexually explicit material. What is significant here is that the main accused, Pulsar Suni, neither asked the survivor for money nor initiated extortion demands. On the contrary, he has admitted to the news media that he made three copies of the rape film and that it was his responsibility to hand it over to the person who paid for it, i.e., according to his admission, Dileep.
The Kerala state government has said it will appeal the acquittal to the Supreme Court. The survivor has maintained her silence since the verdict was announced. We should remember that Dileep was acquitted not because he is innocent, but because prosecutors failed to prove his guilt.
During the trial it was revealed that the recorded evidence of the filmed assault was not present has broken his judicial custody chain several timesand that the memory card on which the recording was stored had been illegally accessed and manipulated on multiple occasions. However, Judge Honey Varghese apparently did not document this forensic evidence for two years, did not pass on the findings to the public prosecutor and only commissioned an investigative team to investigate the manipulation on the orders of the Supreme Court. The Bench of the Kerala High Court under Justice K. Babu observed that:
“On three occasions, the memory card was connected to computer systems equipped with devices capable of copying or transmitting the electronic record or altering the contents.” The necessary conclusion would be that we have failed to protect the victim’s interests, resulting in a violation of his fundamental constitutional rights. The victim claims that the content of the video footage was copied and transmitted. The emotional and psychological damage suffered by the victim is unimaginable.”
The people who illegally accessed the film have been identified, but they have not admitted what they did with the film. They were not prosecuted. It remains to be seen in the final judgment how Judge Honey Varghese will explain this breach of judicial custody of highly sensitive material under her supervision. The rape was revenge. Filming rape is a criminal offense. The distribution of the rape video is the final crime in this series.
Dileep’s defense teamAdditionally, she has been embroiled in allegations that they caused Dileep’s phones to be wiped after the court ordered their release. The lead defense attorneyAdditionally, he has extensive experience representing several high-profile defendants in rape and sexual assault cases. They include Bishop Franco Mulakkal, the Catholic priest accused of raping a nun; Father Thomas Kottoor in Sister Abhaya’s murder case; Father Robin Mathew Vadakkamcherry in the rape and impregnation of a minor; businessman Bobby Chemmannur in the Honey Rose case; IAS officer Sriram Venkataraman, whose driving after drinking killed journalist KM Basheer; and actor Siddique, who is accused of raping an actress, to name a few. Dileep’s defense team was also blamed alleged coercion and intimidation of witnesses over the years, which could account for the 28 hostile witnesses.
We stand by your side
The Kerala state government has said it will appeal the acquittal to the Supreme Court. The survivor has maintained her silence since the verdict was announced. We should remember that Dileep was acquitted not because he is innocent, but because prosecutors failed to prove his guilt. In the meantime, it is crucial that Kerala’s civil society continues to engage with the case and stand with the survivor to ensure she receives the justice she deserves.
The writer, translator, gardener and amateur cook Gayatri Devi was born and grew up in Kerala. Today she lives and works in the United States.