The Kerala High Court, through Justice Kauser Edappagath, has acquitted Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar, former Forest Minister of Kerala, in a case of outraging a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment was rendered in a criminal revision petition (Crl. Rev. Pet. 312 of 2006), challenging convictions by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode (2004), and the Sessions Court, Kozhikode (2005). Both the Trial Court and Sessions Court had found him guilty: the Magistrate had sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment; the Sessions Court reduced the sentence to three months while affirming guilt.
The alleged incident took place on 27 February 1999, at the Government Guest House in Kozhikode, when the complainant, then serving as a Divisional Forest Officer (an officer of the Indian Forest Service), accused the minister of grabbing her hand and pulling her toward him in a manner that allegedly outraged her modesty. The FIR was filed more than two years after the date of the incident. In explanation, the complainant said that she delayed due to fear of acting against a sitting minister; however, she did not act even after his resignation in February 2000. The High Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting, and viewed the delay as “fatal” to the prosecution’s case.
In reviewing the evidence, the High Court also identified inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony. Certain elements, such as her claim that she immediately disclosed the incident to her mother and a close friend, were not present in her earliest statements, but appeared later in the proceedings. The court found that those were subsequent additions intended possibly to bolster the prosecution. Additionally, individuals present at the guest house during the event, including one whom the complainant had later claimed was present, were not examined, and some gave statements that contradicted portions of the complainant’s version.
The High Court also rejected the lower courts’ reliance on testimony of relatives and colleagues of the complainant, considering those as hearsay and inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court reaffirmed that while conviction in sexual offences based on the sole testimony of the victim is permissible, such testimony must meet a high standard—it must be credible, consistent, of “sterling quality,” and free from the kinds of doubts or discrepancies that were present in this case.
Given these findings, the High Court determined that the evidence on record did not justify a conviction under Section 354 IPC. The High Court held that both the trial court and the Sessions Court had erred in their evaluation of the evidence and in applying the necessary legal test to the complainant’s testimony. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the concurrent findings of guilt and convicted sentence, acquitting Dr. Neelalohithadasan Nadar of all charges.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.