Conviction under S.354 IPC cannot be based on victim's sole testimony if it's not of 'sterling quality' and is marred by unexplained delay and material omissions: Kerala High Court - 2025-09-16

Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister in 1999 Molestation Case, Cites Unexplained Delay and Lack of 'Sterling' Evidence

Kochi: In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has acquitted former Kerala Forest Minister Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar in a 25-year-old case, overturning the concurrent convictions by two lower courts for outraging the modesty of a senior Indian Forest Service officer. Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath, allowing the criminal revision petition, held that the conviction could not be sustained as the victim's sole testimony did not meet the high standard of a 'sterling witness' and was plagued by an unexplained delay of over two years in filing the complaint.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case dates back to February 27, 1999, when Dr. Nadar, then the state's Forest Minister, allegedly assaulted the victim, a Divisional Forest Officer, at the Kozhikode Government Guest House. The victim (PW1) alleged that the minister grabbed her hand and pulled her towards him.

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kozhikode had initially convicted Dr. Nadar under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment. On appeal, the Kozhikode Sessions Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months. Dr. Nadar then challenged these judgments before the High Court in a revision petition filed in 2006.

---

Key Arguments in the High Court

Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. S. Rajeev, argued:

* The victim’s testimony was not of "sterling quality" and was insufficient for a conviction, as per the Supreme Court's precedent in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) .

* The evidence from the victim's mother (PW5), friend (PW14), and senior officials (PWs 6, 8, 9) was inadmissible hearsay.

* An undue delay of over two years in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) was not satisfactorily explained.

* The case was a fabrication instigated by a "forest mafia" hostile to the petitioner.

The Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri. E.C. Bineesh, countered:

* The victim’s testimony was credible and sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

* The delay in filing the complaint had been adequately explained by the victim's fear of the petitioner's ministerial position.

* The High Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts in its revisional jurisdiction.

---

Court's Scrutiny of Evidence

Justice Edappagath conducted a meticulous re-evaluation of the evidence, highlighting several critical flaws in the prosecution's case.

1. Admissibility and Credibility of Corroborative Witnesses

The Court found that the testimonies of the victim's mother (PW5) and friend (PW14), who claimed the victim told them about the incident on the same day, were unreliable. The judgment noted a crucial omission:

"It is notable that when PW1 was questioned by PW11 on 14/6/2001, she did not state that she disclosed the incident to PWs 5 and 14. ...This court is persuaded to subscribe to the submission... that the story that PW1 informed PW5 and PW14 on the day of the incident was a later development to strengthen the prosecution case."

Furthermore, the Court determined that the statements of other senior officials (PWs 6, 8, 9) were also inadmissible as they did not pertain to the specific incident in question but rather to general allegations of misconduct. Their evidence, being hearsay, could not be admitted under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as "conduct" because the victim had not disclosed the specific assault to them.

2. The 'Sterling Witness' Test

With the corroborative evidence discarded, the case hinged entirely on the victim's sole testimony. The Court applied the "sterling witness" test, which requires a witness's account to be of exceptionally high quality, consistent, and unassailable.

The judgment pointed out several inconsistencies and improvements in the victim’s statements over time, from her initial complaint to her court deposition. The Court observed:

"The statement of PW1 has been consistently refined and improved from Ext.P1 complaint to her statements... as well as in her deposition before the court... After a thorough examination of PW1's evidence, tested against legal standards and considering the circumstances, I am of the view that PW1 cannot be regarded as a ‘sterling witness’ whose testimony can be accepted without corroboration."

3. Unexplained Delay in Filing FIR

The incident occurred on February 27, 1999, but the formal complaint was filed only on March 25, 2001. While the Court accepted the victim's explanation for the delay while Dr. Nadar was a minister, it found the subsequent delay inexplicable. Dr. Nadar had resigned from his post on February 12, 2000, yet the complaint was lodged over a year later.

The Court held this unexplained delay to be fatal to the prosecution's case, stating:

"...the vague and flimsy explanation given for the delay from 3/5/2000 to 25/3/2001 cannot be believed at all. The failure to explain the said delay is fatal and is a key factor when assessing the quality of PW1's evidence."

---

Final Verdict and Rationale for Intervention

Concluding that the trial and appellate courts had erred in their appreciation of evidence and application of law, the High Court set aside the conviction. Justice Edappagath justified the intervention in revisional jurisdiction, stating that the lower courts' findings were based on a misconstruction of evidence and a failure to correctly apply legal principles regarding hearsay and the 'sterling witness' test.

The petitioner, Dr. Nadar, was found not guilty and acquitted of the charge under Section 354 IPC, bringing a 25-year-long legal battle to a close.