Kerala High Court acquits former minister A Neelalohithadasan Nadar in 2001 sexual harassment case

The Kerala High Court on Monday acquitted former forest minister Dr A Neelalohithadasan Nadar in a 2001 sexual harassment case.where the Court set aside the conviction recorded by both the trial and appellate courts. [Dr A Neelalohithadasan Nadar v State of Kerala].Justice Kauser Edappagath set aside the conviction rendered by the trial court and the appellate court after noting that Nadar's conviction was mainly based on the victim's oral testimony, which lacked sufficient corroboration, while the supporting testimonies from the victim's mother, close friend and officials were also found to be hearsay and inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act.The High Court explained that in sexual offence cases, the sole testimony of a victim can be relied upon only when the testimony meets the strict 'sterling witness' standard of being consistent, natural, aligned with other supporting evidence and can withstand rigorous cross-examination.Finding that the such a sterling testimony was absent in the present case, the Court acquitted Nadar of the offence under Section 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)."It is a case where the trial court, as well as the appellate court, failed to test the evidence of PW1 as that of a sterling witness. The evidence of PWs5, 6, 8, 9 and 14 was also not scrutinised on the touchstone of Sections 8 and 60 of the Evidence Act. The entire approach of the trial court, as well as the appellate court, in dealing with the evidence and law on the point was wrong. The evidence on record does not at all justify a conviction under Section 354 of IPC. At any rate, it is a fit case where the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the petitioner. For all the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court stand hereby set aside. The petitioner is found not guilty of the offence alleged against him, and he is acquitted. The Criminal Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed," the Court ruled..Nadar, while serving as the Forest Minister of Kerala in 1999, was alleged to have outraged the modesty of a female officer (victim) of the Indian Forest Service.The victim filed a complaint alleging Nadar of calling her to a government guest house room at Kozhikode, where he grabbed her right arm, pulled her towards him and pressed her shoulder against his body.Based on her complaint, a first information report (FIR) was registered against him under Section 354 IPC.A trial court found him guilty of the offence and sentenced him to one year imprisonment in September 2004 and an appellate court later upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months in December 2005.Nadar then approached the Kerala High Court challenging both judgments..After going through the case, the Court found that there were multiple flaws in the prosecution's case. It first noted the significant delay of more than two years in lodging the complaint.The Court rejected the victim's justification for the same after finding it to be vague and flimsy.The Court also observed that the evidence from the victim's mother and other prosecution witness were inadmissible under Section 60 (oral evidence must be direct) of the Evidence Act as they had not directly witnessed the alleged assault and thus, their statements could not be relied upon.It clarified that even with the aid of Section 8 (motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct) of the Evidence Act, the supporting witnesses could not be relied upon since the victim had not disclosed the incident to them immediately after it allegedly occurred.The Court further observed that the prosecution failed to properly investigate the telephone disclosures and certain crucial witnesses that could have helped in corroborating the story of the victim..Based on these findings, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted Nadar of the offence..The petitioner was represented by advocates S Rajeev, V Vinay, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR and KS Kiran Krishnan.Senior public prosecutor EC Bineesh appeared for the state..[Read Judgment]