The verdict in the actress attack case that Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court pronounced on Monday, which has been eagerly awaited for the past eight and a half years in the state, has met with widespread strong reactions in the state. The case captured huge public attention because the incident that took place on February 17, 2017 was not an ordinary case of violence against women but a planned sexual assault against a famous actress in the Malayalam film industry. The gist of the case submitted before the court is that a gang of goons that Dileep alias Gopalakrishnan Nair—one of the most popular actors in Malayalam cinema, an office bearer of actors’ guild ‘Amma’, film producer and theatre owner—arranged after conspiring with notorious criminal Pulsar Suni to vent his personal enmity who abducted the actress and brutally raped, stripped naked and assaulted, and the entire incident was recorded on video. Late Congress leader P.T. Thomas MLA’s prompt intervention led to a vigilant police investigation and the arrest of ten suspects, including Sunil. Although the trial proceedings against the accused began on dozens of charges, including gang rape, criminal conspiracy, wrongful confinement, and outrage of womanhood, and detention, the constant interference from the eighth accused, Dileep's interventions dragged it on indefinitely.
Eventually when the verdict came out, the most important question remains unanswered. The fact that the court has found the six accused guilty gives only a partial consolation not only for the survivor but also for the general public. Although the court would also admit that a brutal act like this would not have been possible without a serious conspiracy, the court acquitted four people, including actor Dileep, citing lack of evidence against them. Further details will come out only after the court pronounces punishment on December 12. However, no one is willing to belittle the case of a rape that six criminal committed out of the blue. The court pointed out in the judgment that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of conspiracy. It means that the police and prosecution have failed to present evidence that meticulously uncovers who was behind the conspiracy. Presenting details including hotel receipts the prosecution tried to prove that the attack on the actress was based on the agreement made between the eighth accused Dileep and the first accused Pulsar Suni at a hotel in Ernakulam in 2016, the court did not accept them. Only an appellate court can determine whether the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy charge, as the court observed or there was lapse on the part of the court to assessing the true value of the evidence.
Therefore, an appeal against the verdict is the only way to ensure justice for the survivor and to rectify the perception that money and influence could win any thing. The Chief Minister's response suggests that this is being seriously considered. The possibility of the survivor appealing against the verdict cannot be ruled out either. The election time is usually an occasion to interpret everything through political lens, leading to conflicting opinions. It is certain that the opinions of the government and the opposition could elicit other motives rather than the merit of the case. At the same time, the resistance and dialogue that emanated from the incident created some positive results: the issue of women's safety, which had been consistently ignored in the burgeoning film industry, became a topic of discussion on a large scale, thus Women in Cinema Collective took shape, the Hema Committee was appointed to prioritize women's safety. and the underworld behind the cinema field was exposed. As a result, several actionable recommendations were also made in the report. Despite intense pressure, the government called a conclave of stakeholders to suggest solutions to be implemented in the film industry. Actions in this direction should be able to gradually convey the message that cinema is a world where women can work without compromising their dignity and pride. It is high time that the government, film activists, and society urgently changed the misconception that cinema is a medium for making money and living self-indulgently.