Kerala: Actress who accused Mukesh, Jayasurya now charged with trafficking cousin

In a dramatic twist following the Hema Committee disclosures and #MeToo allegations in Kerala’s film industry, a young woman from Muvattupuzha has made startling allegations against a small-time actress who has accused MLA M Mukesh and actors like Maniyanpilla Raju, Jayasurya and Idavela Babu of sexual exploitation.

The woman claims the actress, who is her maternal cousin, attempted to sell her to a sex trafficking ring in Chennai about 10 years ago.

Cousin told to 'adjust'

According to her, during a vacation in 2014 when she was in senior school, her mother and she travelled to Chennai. There, the cousin-actress took her to a hotel where she was introduced to a few film producers who, she claims, “mistreated me in the room”.

“I declined and left. However, she (actress) was pressuring me to ‘adjust’, claiming that this was standard practice in the industry. She assured me that if I cooperated, I would have a wonderful career because she had assisted many people in entering the film industry and Gulf countries,” the woman, who works in a private company, told the television media.

The woman has already filed complaints with the DGPs (director general of police) in Kerala and Tamil Nadu against her cousin.

“I was too young at the time and just trying to move on. Now that she has been making allegations left and right, I felt it was important for people to know who she really is,” she said.

Political conspiracy, alleges actress

The actress in question took to social media and even went live on Facebook to deny the allegations. She accused her young cousin of accepting money to slander her and claimed that it was part of a political conspiracy against her.

According to her, she was preparing to make allegations against 16 Kerala MLAs from both the ruling and Opposition parties, including two ministers and several prominent lawyers.

Judicial observations

Earlier, the Sessions Court Ernakulam division, while granting bail to actor-politician Mukesh, made some adverse observations regarding the complainant.

“In this case, one and only contention advanced by the victim is that her consent was obtained on the strength of promise of membership in the association (AMMA). She was in need of the membership and, hence, she consented for sexual intercourse." the court said.

Further, the court observed, “On an analysis of the FI statement as well as the further statement it seems prima facie that the de-facto complainant accompanied the petitioner on the date of occurrence in his BMW car. Moreover, the de-facto complainant herself claimed that the petitioner demanded sexual favours from her frequently over phone for the membership."

“Even on the date of occurrence, the petitioner asked her to accompany him for sharing a bed… The de-facto complainant is a law graduate and a married woman. She is a person with capacity to understand nature and consequences of the sexual indulgence. Still, she accompanied the petitioner and had sexual intercourse. No element of forcible intercourse was mentioned in the FI statement. It is true that in the further statement she claimed that she was subjected to forceful intercourse," the court added.

“As I pointed out, this statement was recorded after the initial hearing of this bail application. Even then the history stated to the doctor on that day evening also lacks this element,” read the bail order.

Kerala feminist group

Despite being widely condemned by civil society activists as victim-blaming, the investigating team also questioned the complainant’s intentions and the genuineness of her allegations.

Meanwhile, the Althea women’s collective which claims to be a non-NGO feminist group, said, "The court views the complainant’s voluntary presence with the accused as consent for sexual assault, which raises significant concerns about the credibility of her allegations. When considering the bail application, there is no need to scrutinize the complainant’s actions in this manner. This prompts questions about the motivation behind such scrutiny – whether it aims to undermine the environment created by the Hema Committee report, which encourages women to come forward."

Further, the NGO pointed out that after the Hema Committee report’s release, disbelieving complainants or humiliating women who have come forward undermines the confidence of survivors in reporting their experiences.

Legal action

On the other hand, in a significant development, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Kerala Police is all set to take decisive legal action in light of the findings from the Hema Committee report.

Sources indicate that the SIT, formed on August 30 and led by Deputy Inspector General (DIGs) Ajeetha Begum Sulthan and G Poonguzhali, have identified over 20 cases involving serious allegations.

The first phase of witness examination and the recording of statements is expected to conclude by September 30, and cases are likely to be filed before the next high court hearing on October 3.

The team plans to reach out to the complainants, seeking their consent to proceed with legal actions based on any new statements they may provide.

If the complainants offer new insights or information, the SIT is prepared to take immediate legal steps, signalling a renewed focus on victim support.

POSCO charges too?

In addition to pursuing existing cases, the SIT is gearing up to file charges under the Prevention of Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for any revelations that fall within its scope. Notably, this process will not require victims to re-record their statements, which can often be a daunting experience for survivors.

The Hema Committee report itself is extensive, comprising nearly 3,900 pages, which includes the statements by the survivors. However, only a small portion. i.e., 296 pages, was made available to the Right to Information (RTI) applicants. The SIT plans to collaborate with members of the Hema panel and the department of culture to identify individuals who may have remained anonymous in their disclosures.

Judicial push

On September 10, justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and CS Sudha expressed strong discontent with the state government’s failure to act on the Hema Committee report for several years.

The court ordered that the complete unredacted report be handed over to the SIT, emphasising that immediate action was necessary.

This judicial push has reignited hopes among victims and advocates for a more responsive legal framework addressing sexual exploitation.