 |
|
The Kerala High Court has delivered a strong verdict against Malayalam film actor Siddique, rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in a rape case. The court highlighted the importance of understanding the trauma survivors endure, particularly in cases where there is a delay in reporting the sexual abuse. Siddique, who has been accused of sexually assaulting a junior actor at a hotel in Thiruvananthapuram in 2016, has been facing legal scrutiny for his alleged actions. The court's decision emphasizes the need for a thorough investigation, including custodial interrogation, to ensure justice for the survivor.
The court's judgment addressed three key arguments presented by Siddique's defense. Firstly, the defense argued that the delay in reporting the alleged crime undermined the credibility of the survivor's complaint. However, the court refuted this argument, stating that trauma experienced by survivors can create significant barriers in reporting abuse, and this delay must be understood within the context of their suffering. The court acknowledged the psychological, emotional, and social factors that can prevent victims from immediately disclosing their experiences.
Secondly, Siddique's defense contended that the rape charges were not applicable as the complaint did not specifically mention penetration with his genital organ. The court, however, dismissed this argument, citing Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines rape as any non-consensual sexual act, including acts that do not involve penetration with genital organs. The court emphasized that the absence of penile penetration does not diminish the gravity of the alleged offense.
Thirdly, the defense attempted to discredit the survivor's complaint by highlighting her vocal and outspoken nature and suggesting that she had made allegations against fourteen other men. This argument was firmly rejected by the court, which clarified that a woman's experiences of sexual assault are not a reflection of her character but rather a testament to the suffering she has endured. The court emphasized that any attempt to portray a woman as immoral with the intention of silencing her is against the law. It emphasized that the focus should be on the seriousness of the complaint, not the character of the complainant.
The court further condemned the character assassination of the survivor, reiterating that every woman deserves respect regardless of her circumstances. It cited the Supreme Court order in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, which highlights the fundamental right to respect for all women. The court's ruling underscores the importance of protecting survivors from harassment and intimidation, ensuring that justice is served without allowing for the victim's character to be unfairly scrutinized.