Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Tuesday said that the delay in reporting sexual abuse and assault should be understood in the context of the trauma survivors experience. The High Court made the remarks while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea moved by Malayalam film actor Siddique in a rape case. Siddique, who had to resign as the general secretary of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (AMMA) following the allegations against him, was recently booked on charges of sexually assaulting a junior actor at a hotel in Thiruvananthapuram in 2016.
While rejecting the anticipatory bail plea, the court noted that the petitioner must undergo custodial interrogation to ensure a thorough investigation of the crime. This is particularly important since i) the petitioner completely denies the incident, ii) a potency test is required, and iii) the prosecution had reasonable concerns that he may intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Court slams character assassination of survivor
The accused sought pre-arrest bail mainly on three grounds; 1. the delay in reporting the alleged crime, 2. rape charges were not attracted as there is no mention of penetrative sex in the complaint, 3. the survivor is as an outspoken and vociferous woman who has made unsubstantiated allegations against fourteen men. The court rejected all three contentions, citing relevant legal clauses and previous verdicts.
Justice C S Dias, in his judgment, stated that based on the evidence presented before the court, a prima facie case exists against Siddique. The court also observed that the complainant had been subject to character assassination and reiterated that every woman deserves respect, irrespective of the circumstances.
This is how the court rejected each of the arguments:
Contention 1: Delay
“Victims of sexual abuse and assault may experience psychological, emotional and social barriers that feed the delay in reporting the matter, which necessarily has to be understood in the context of the trauma,” Justice C S Dias said in his order.
Contention 2: Penetration
The court also dismissed Siddique's argument that the complaint lacked merit because it did not include allegations of penetration with his genital organ. According to Section 375 of the IPC, sexual assault does not only involve penetration with genital organs—any non-consensual act falls under the definition of rape. Therefore, the argument that there was no penile penetration does not hold.
Contention 3: Allegations against 14 men
The defence argued that her complaint lacked credibility since she had made allegations against 14 people. The court termed this argument unnecessary. It also clarified that the trauma experienced by a woman who has been sexually assaulted does not reflect her character but the suffering she endured. Any attempt to portray a woman as immoral might be an effort to silence her, but this is against the law. The court is concerned with the seriousness of the complaint, not the character of the complainant, it said.
The court said that the submission that the complaint against the actor lacks credibility because the survivor as an outspoken and vociferous lady is unwarranted and reflects an uncharitable view of the survivor's circumstances. “A woman’s experiences of sexual assault are not a reflection of her character but rather an indication of her suffering,” the court said.
Citing the Supreme Court order in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India case of 2024, the high court said that a woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may be otherwise considered in society or to whatever faith she may follow or any creed she may belong to.
