While granting bail to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday pointed out contradictory statements made by the survivor and the involvement of political figures in the matter. The public prosecutor's allegation that it was rape and not sexual intercourse by deception also raised further legal questions.
Denying the allegations, Rahul's lawyer said the claims levelled by the prosecution are false, frivolous, and politically motivated. To support this argument, his counsel pointed out that the victim had initially approached the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president Sunny Joseph instead of filing a formal police complaint. The defence argued that the survivor had shown no intention of pursuing criminal action and refrained from filing a complaint for some time.
Besides this, the defence highlighted a discrepancy in the survivor's police statement, where she initially expressed fear and a lack of interest in proceeding with the case, but this part was later crossed out. This, the defence argues, could indicate that the complaint was filed under external pressure.
The central claim in the case is that the survivor was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse by Rahul, which allegedly led to severe physical and emotional trauma. According to the survivor’s complaint, she went voluntarily with Rahul to discuss future plans, but a brutal sexual assault followed. The survivor allegedly experienced a panic attack during the assault, which caused her to struggle to breathe and required her to take medication. She also mentioned suffering physical injuries, including cuts and bruises.
However, despite this, the victim allegedly requested Rahul to reaffirm his commitment to marriage after the assault. But he allegedly denied any such intention, stating that he had no plans to marry anyone at that moment.
The survivor's statement given to the police contains contradictions in relation to the complaint. While she mentioned the assault and its aftermath in detail in the complaint, her police statement offered a slightly different version of events. According to the police statement, the survivor indicated that discussions about a marriage proposal were deferred to a later time, rather than being categorically rejected, as initially stated by Rahul in his communications with her.
In her police statement, the victim also clarified that, despite the alleged incident, the two continued to maintain contact through Telegram and phone calls. The victim herself stated that after the alleged assault, Rahul had continued to express love and even proposed marriage to her. The survivor also said that after reaching home, she had to take medication for the injuries caused by Rahul, but in her police statement, she indicated that she did not seek medical treatment immediately, fearing her family might find out about the assault.
Further complicating the case is the evidence provided by the investigation officer, which includes a printout of chat screenshots between Rahul and the survivor. While some parts of the chats are masked, it appears that the two continued to communicate even after the alleged assault. They discussed the nature of their relationship. However, the prosecution has not yet provided any conclusive evidence that definitively supports the allegation of rape.
The court noted that while the survivor's statement must be examined in full, there appears to be no prima facie material to prove that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. It observed that whether the survivor’s consent was coerced or obtained against her will remains a matter for further investigation and evidence.
While the allegations of rape cannot be ruled out at this stage, the contradictions in the survivor’s statements and the potential political dimensions of the case are crucial points of contention, said the court. It cautioned against prematurely implicating Rahul in such a serious crime without clear prima facie evidence.
