Dileep, once called people's hero became one of the most doubted if not hated men in Kerala.

His fans, who used to bathe his more than life-size cut-outs with milk before the release of his movies, have now even deleted even their Facebook groups.

Those who cannot accept the arrest are merely urging to give the actor the benefit of doubt.

Though Dileep's name was linked with the actress attack case much earlier, there was no solid evidence to prove his involvement in the incident.

He even went to the extend of stating that any news about his involvement in the incident were attempts to tamper his image and sabotage the launch of his next flick 'Ramaleela.'

But, a close look raises the doubt whether the actor was in fact framed in the case. After consulting with some legal experts, Here are the following factors that cast doubt on the case -

Suni not allowed to surrender

Police did not allow prime accused Pulsar Suni to surrender. He was dragged away from court on February 23.

"Police prevented arrest for custodial interrogation. If the accused surrenders the court need not send him to police custody. In this case, police wanted to ensure custodial interrogation before Suni could give a statement before the court," Supreme Court lawyer Ranjit Marar said.

Contradictory statements

At first, he said that he dumped the mobile in water. Later he said that it was handed over to his advocate, Pratheesh Chacko. His latest statement is that he gave sim card at Kavya Madhavan's shop in Kakkanad.

The letter and calls

Dileep complained about blackmail over the phone and a letter written by Suni. The letter was written by Suni's cell mate in a paper with the official jail seal. Suni also used a mobile phone in jail and also made calls from the coin booth there. How did he do this?

However, police explained that the paper was 'taken without permission.'

Original missing

Investigating officials say that the originals of the visuals are still missing. However, they have not yet revealed from where they managed to get the copy as well, leading to doubts.

Arresting the advocate

Police want to arrest Prateesh Chacko, the advocate who had appeared for Suni earlier.

The officials state that questioning him will help to find the source of originals of the video.

"The move is against attorney-client privilege, one of the oldest recognised privileges for confidential communications among an advocate and his client. This privilege encourages the client to make 'full and frank' disclosure to attorneys that will help in effective representation," Marar said.

The madam

Police have said that the 'madam' Pulsar Suni speaks out about is just a plot to mislead the probe.

They also dismissed the possibility of Kavya's and her mother's direct role in the conspiracy. At the same time, there are rumours that Kavya Madhavan was questioned and the officers are planning to interrogate her mother.

Hostile witness

Dileep's counsel has asked why the prosecution is looking for a hostile witness if the police got enough evidence against the actor.

The police had said that they had collected 19 pieces of evidence against the actor. But since they are looking for a hostile witness perhaps they don't have enough evidence to prove the charges levelled against Dileep.

Police are yet to complete interrogation, and the matter is still sub-judice.

There is a possibility of either the acquittal or the conviction of Dileep based on the evidence collected and findings of the further probe.

However, legal experts state that, under current circumstances, not many provisions under which the actor is booked will stand in court.

The only provisions that are likely to be proven are Section 366 (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman) of the IPC and Sections 66E (Punishment for violation of privacy) and 67A (Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act) of the IT Act.