Actress who accused Mukesh and Jayasurya now charged with human trafficking with cousin

In a dramatic twist after the Hema Commission revelations and the #MeToo allegations in the Kerala film industry, a young woman from Muvattupuzha has made shocking 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 alleges that the actress, a cousin of her mother, tried to sell her to a sex trafficking network in Chennai about 10 years ago.

Cousin is told to ‘conform’

According to her, during a vacation in 2014, when she was in high school, she traveled to Chennai with her mother. There, the actress cousin took her to a hotel, where she was introduced to some film producers who, she claims, “abused me in the room.”

“I refused and left. However, she (actress) pressured me to comply, claiming that it was standard practice in the industry. She assured me that if I cooperated, I would have a great career as she had helped many people enter the film industry and the Gulf countries,” the woman, who works in a private company, told 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 I was just trying to move on. Now that she’s been making accusations left and right, I thought it was important for people to know who she really is,” she said.

Political conspiracy, actress claims

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

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

Legal notes

Earlier, the Ernakulam court, while granting bail to actor-politician Mukesh, had made some adverse remarks about the complainant.

“In this case, the victim’s only argument is that her consent was obtained on the basis of the promise of membership of the association (AMMA). She needed the membership and therefore she consented to sexual intercourse,” the court said.

The court further noted: “On analysis of the FI statement and the further statement, it appears prima facie that the de facto complainant accompanied the applicant on the date of the incident in his BMW car. Furthermore, the de facto complainant herself alleged that the applicant regularly asked her for sexual favours over the telephone for membership.”

“Even on the date of the incident, the applicant asked her to accompany him to share a bed… The actual complainant is a law student and a married woman. She is a person with the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the sexual escapade. Yet, she accompanied the applicant and had sexual intercourse. No element of forced intercourse was mentioned in the FI statement. It is true that in the further statement she alleged that she was subjected to forced intercourse,” the court added.

“As I have indicated, this statement was taken after the initial hearing of this bail application. Even then, this element was also absent from the history presented to the doctor that evening,” the bail order states.

Feminist group from Kerala

While civil society activists widely condemned the case for blaming the victim, the investigation team also questioned the intentions of the accuser and the veracity of her allegations.

Meanwhile, the Althea Women’s Collective, which claims to be a non-NGO feminist group, said: “The court considers the complainant’s voluntary presence with the accused as consent to sexual abuse, which raises significant concerns about the credibility of her allegations. In considering the bail application, there is no need to scrutinise the complainant’s actions in this manner. This raises questions about the motivation behind such an investigation – whether it is intended to undermine the environment created by the Hema Commission report, which encourages women to come forward.”

Furthermore, the NGO pointed out that the discrediting of complainants and the humiliation of women who came forward following the publication of the Hema Commission report undermines the confidence of survivors to report their experiences.

Legal steps

On the other hand, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Kerala Police is all set to take decisive legal action based on the findings of the Hema Commission report.

Sources said the SIT, constituted on August 30 and headed by Deputy Inspector Generals (DIGs) Ajeetha Begum Sulthan and G Poonguzhali, has identified over 20 cases with serious allegations.

The first phase of witness examination and recording of statements is expected to be completed on September 30. The cases are likely to be filed before the next hearing at the Supreme Court on October 3.

The team plans to contact the complainants and ask their consent to take legal action based on any new statements they make.

If the complainants provide new insights or information, the SIT is prepared to take immediate legal action. This is a sign of renewed attention to victim support.

Does POSCO also pay?

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

The Hema Commission report itself is extensive, running to almost 3,900 pages, containing the survivors’ statements. However, only a small portion, 296 pages, was made available to Right to Information (RTI) applicants. The SIT plans to work with members of the Hema panel and the Ministry of Culture to identify individuals who may have remained anonymous in their disclosures.

Legal push

On September 10, a bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and CS Sudha expressed dismay over the state government’s failure to take action on the Hema Commission report for years.

The court ordered that the full, uncensored report be handed over to the SIT, stressing that immediate action was needed.

This legal impetus has rekindled hopes among victims and advocates for a more responsive legal framework to address sexual exploitation.