Kerala HC Acquits Former Minister 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, setting aside his conviction recorded by both the trial and appellate courts.

 

Justice Kauser Edappagath held that the lower courts had relied on flawed evidence and failed to apply proper legal principles. The conviction, the Court noted, was based primarily on the victim’s oral testimony, which lacked sufficient corroboration. Supporting statements from the victim’s mother, a close friend, and certain officials were found inadmissible as hearsay under the Indian Evidence Act.

 

The Court clarified that in sexual offence cases, a victim’s sole testimony may be relied upon only if it meets the stringent “sterling witness” standard -- being consistent, natural, supported by other evidence, and able to withstand cross-examination. Since such credibility was absent in this case, Nadar was acquitted of the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty).

 

“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 in light of Sections 8 and 60 of the Evidence Act. The entire approach was wrong, and the evidence on record does not justify a conviction under Section 354 IPC. At any rate, the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended,” the judgment stated, allowing Nadar’s criminal revision petition.

 

The case dates back to 1999 when Nadar, then serving as Kerala’s Forest Minister, was accused of calling a woman Indian Forest Service officer to a government guest house in Kozhikode and allegedly molesting her by grabbing her arm and pressing her shoulder against his body. An FIR was later registered under Section 354 IPC.

 

In 2004, the trial court convicted Nadar and sentenced him to one year in prison. The appellate court upheld the conviction in 2005 but reduced the sentence to three months. Nadar challenged both verdicts before the High Court.

 

While reviewing the matter, the High Court flagged multiple flaws in the prosecution’s case. It pointed to the two-year delay in lodging the complaint, which the victim could not satisfactorily explain. The testimonies of her mother and other witnesses were deemed inadmissible under Section 60 of the Evidence Act as they were not direct witnesses to the alleged incident. Even under Section 8 of the Act (motive, preparation and conduct), the supporting witnesses could not be relied upon, since the victim had not disclosed the incident to them immediately.

 

The Court also noted lapses in the investigation, including the failure to probe the victim’s telephone disclosures and examine key witnesses who might have corroborated her version.

 

In light of these shortcomings, the High Court acquitted Nadar, ruling that the evidence on record did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.