Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Neelalohithadasan Nadar | Conviction Under Section 354 IPC in 1999 Sexual Harassment Case Set Aside for Lack of ‘Sterling Witness’ Testimony
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath on Monday set aside the conviction of former Forest Minister Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar, acquitting him of charges under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly outraging the modesty of a woman Indian Forest Service officer. The Court held that the victim’s testimony did not meet the standard of a “sterling witness” and that corroborative evidence relied upon was inadmissible or insufficient under Sections 8 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was extended to the petitioner.
The criminal revision petition arose from allegations against Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar, former Minister for Forest, Kerala, relating to an incident dated 27 February 1999. The petitioner was accused of outraging the modesty of a woman Indian Forest Service officer, then serving as Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode. The prosecution alleged that while the officer was summoned to the Government Guest House, Kozhikode, the petitioner grabbed her right hand, pulled her towards him, and pressed her shoulder against his body.
Following the complaint, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode, tried the matter and convicted the petitioner under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months of simple imprisonment. The petitioner then filed this revision petition challenging both findings.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the conviction based solely on the complainant’s testimony was unsustainable, as it did not satisfy the test of a “sterling witness.” It was argued that the testimonies of other witnesses, including the complainant’s mother, friend, and senior officials, were inadmissible as hearsay under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, there was a delay of more than two years in lodging the complaint, which remained unexplained. The petitioner also alleged that the case was fabricated by the forest mafia in collusion with the complainant.
The prosecution, represented by the Senior Public Prosecutor, submitted that the complainant’s testimony was sufficient to inspire confidence, and minor inconsistencies could not discredit her version. It was argued that the delay in filing the complaint had been adequately explained. The prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of the complainant as well as the corroborative accounts given to her mother, friend, the Chairperson of the Kerala Women’s Commission, and senior forest officers.
The dispute revolved around whether the complainant’s testimony qualified as reliable and consistent evidence to sustain a conviction under Section 354 IPC. Statutory provisions considered included Section 354 of the IPC, Sections 8 and 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which confer revisional powers upon the High Court.
The Court observed that “PWs 5, 6, 8, 9 or 14 have no case that they witnessed the petitioner sexually assaulting or sexually harassing the victim. There was no occasion for the same.” It recorded that the testimonies of these witnesses were “hit by Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’) being hearsay evidence.”
It further noted that “the statement made by the victim after the sexual assault, if any, narrating the circumstances and the manner in which she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused is legally admissible as evidence of conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.” However, upon examination, the Court held, “the testimony of PWs 5 and 14 cannot be relied upon with the aid of Section 8 of the Evidence Act.”
Regarding the evidence of the Women’s Commission Chairperson and senior forest officers, the Court stated, “they have no case at all that PW1 disclosed anything to them about the alleged incident at the Government Guest House, Kozhikode, on 27/2/1999 at 9.30 a.m.” It added, “both the trial court and the appellate court erred in relying on the evidence of PWs 5, 6, 8, 9, and 14. What remains is the sole evidence of the victim.”
On the principle of conviction based on sole testimony, the Court recorded: “Conviction undoubtedly can be recorded on the sole evidence of a victim of crime; however, it must undergo a strict scrutiny through the well-recognizable legal principles.” It cited Supreme Court rulings, noting that “the sole testimony of the victim, if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused.”
Examining the complainant’s account, the Court held, “Her version of the incident testified in court has no correlation with her own police statement. The said version also does not match the accounts of other prosecution witnesses.” It concluded, “PW1 cannot be regarded as a ‘sterling witness’ whose testimony can be accepted without corroboration to be the basis for the conviction of the petitioner.”
Finally, the Court observed, “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.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. S. Rajeev, Sri. V. Vinay, Sri. M. S. Aneer, Shri. Sarath K.P., Shri. Anilkumar C.R., Shri. K.S. Kiran Krishnan
For the Respondent: Sri. E.C. Bineesh, Senior Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:68136
Case Number: Crl.R.P. No. 312 of 2006
Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath
