The Kerala High Court acquitted ex-Forest Minister Neelalohithadasan Nadar in a sexual harassment case, ruling that the benefit of doubt ought to be extended in the absence of sterling evidence.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: The Kerala High Court on Monday acquitted former Forest Minister Dr A Neelalohithadasan Nadar in a 2001 sexual harassment case, setting aside the conviction previously upheld by both the trial court and the appellate court.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, who delivered the verdict, ruled that the conviction was unsustainable since it was primarily based on the oral testimony of the victim, which failed to meet the legal standards required for a conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
In 1999, while serving as the Forest Minister of Kerala, Dr Nadar was accused of outraging the modesty of a female officer of the Indian Forest Service. The victim alleged that Nadar had called her to a government guest house in Kozhikode, where he grabbed her arm and pressed her shoulder against his body.
An FIR was registered under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty). In 2004, a trial court convicted Nadar and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment. In 2005, an appellate court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months.
Nadar then approached the High Court, challenging both decisions.
High Court’s Observations
The Court closely scrutinized the prosecution’s case and highlighted multiple flaws, including:
- Delay in lodging complaint: The victim filed the complaint more than two years after the alleged incident. The Court found her explanation for the delay vague and unconvincing.
- Reliance on hearsay evidence: Statements from the victim’s mother, close friend, and officials were considered inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, as they had not directly witnessed the incident.
- Lack of corroboration: The Court noted that even with Section 8 of the Evidence Act (regarding motive, preparation, or subsequent conduct), the supporting witnesses could not strengthen the case, as the victim had not immediately disclosed the incident to them.
- Incomplete investigation: The prosecution failed to properly investigate telephone disclosures and crucial witnesses that could have corroborated the victim’s version of events.
On the critical issue of the victim’s testimony, the Court emphasized that in cases of sexual offences, the sole testimony of the victim can form the basis of a conviction only if it meets the strict “sterling witness” standard, meaning the testimony must be consistent, natural, corroborated by supporting evidence, and able to withstand rigorous cross-examination.
Finding that this standard was not met, the Court concluded that the trial and appellate courts had erred in their approach.
Quashing the earlier judgments, Justice Edappagath observed:
“The trial and appellate courts failed to test the victim’s evidence as that of a sterling witness. The record does not justify conviction under Section 354 IPC. Benefit of doubt ought to have been extended; hence, the petitioner is acquitted”
Appearance:
The petitioner: Aocates S Rajeev, V Vinay, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR and KS Kiran Krishnan
The state: Senior public prosecutor EC Bineesh
Case Title:
Dr A Neelalohithadasan Nadar v State of Kerala
CRL.REV.PET NO. 312 OF 2006
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sexual Harassment
