Justice At Crossroads In Kochi

It took eight long years for Kerala’s criminal justice system to complete the investigation, trial, and pronouncement of verdict in the sensational abduction and sexual assault case involving actor Dileep and 10 others. When Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese finally delivered her judgement one of the most keenly awaited in recent memory her verdict left both relief and bewilderment in its wake. While six accused were convicted of grave offences, including conspiracy, sexual assault, disrobing, and filming the victim, Dileep and four others were acquitted. The contradiction at the heart of the judgement is hard to ignore. The court faulted the prosecution for failing to establish conspiracy and instigation against Dileep beyond reasonable doubt. Yet, it held that the same prosecution had successfully proved conspiracy among the six who physically carried out the abduction and the horrendous assault on February 17, 2017.

This raises an obvious question: why would six men with no personal enmity against the victim conspire to commit such a crime unless someone else had orchestrated it? In criminal jurisprudence, the question of cui bono—who benefited?—is central to any conspiracy investigation. The six convicted men are not known to have gained anything by abducting and assaulting the popular actor. Even the judge accepted that a conspiracy existed. The prosecution’s case, therefore, rested heavily on identifying the mastermind and establishing the chain of command. Yet, Judge Varghese concluded that the evidence against Dileep did not meet the threshold of credibility required for conviction. As it stands, the six convicted will face severe punishment when the quantum of sentence is pronounced. But the deeper ramifications of the judgement extend well beyond sentencing.

The case had already triggered a reckoning within Kerala’s film industry, prompting the government to set up the Hema Committee to look into long-whispered allegations of misogyny, exploitation, and a toxic work culture. In its wake, many victims of harassment finally mustered the courage to speak out. Some women actors found the environment so hostile that they chose to migrate to other regional industries for survival and dignity. Ultimately, the committee’s report failed to bring justice to the victims. In the public mind, the belief that the masterminds escaped while only the foot soldiers were punished remains strong. It is a perception rooted not in cynicism but in the logic of the crime itself. Yet, all may not be lost. The victim has made it clear that she will continue her fight until justice is fully served. Kerala’s Law Minister, P. Rajeev, has also announced that the government will challenge the verdict in the High Court. For now, the quest for truth continues—reminding us that justice, though delayed, must never be allowed to be denied.