Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Dr.A.Neelalohithadasan Nadar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 312 of 2006
Decided on : 15-09-2025
For the Appellant : ADVS.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: ADV SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH
For a conviction in sexual offenses under IPC, the victim's testimony must be reliable and of sterling quality, free from inconsistencies and delays affecting credibility.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Allegation of outraging modesty - Conviction based on victim's testimony - Admissibility and evidentiary value of hearsay evidence discussed - Delay in lodging FIR raised concerns - The victim's testimony must be of sterling quality where devoid of inconsistencies to be reliable enough - The conviction cannot stand when there are significant discrepancies. (Paras 1, 10, 13, 20, 21)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 60 - Dictates that oral evidence must be direct - Hearsay evidence failed to meet requirements - Assessment of delays in filing complaints examined. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for allegedly outraging a victim's modesty based on her testimony and that of various witnesses, despite the conviction being challenged on the grounds of evidence inadequacies and discrepancies surrounding the incident and delay in filing the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The examination of evidence regarding delay and testimony revealed inconsistencies, leading to the conclusion that fundamental principles of evidence were not adhered to, warranting reversal of lower court decisions.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the reliability of the victim's testimony in light of perceived delays and inconsistencies which drew doubt on its reliability as per established legal standards.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction based on the testimony of a lone witness, particularly in sexual offenses, necessitates evidence of a high caliber without inconsistency. The legal approach taken in assessing such evidence in the present case was flawed.
Result: The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court stand hereby set aside.
ORDER :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
The revision petitioner, Minister for Forest, Kerala, in 1999, was prosecuted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – IV, Kozhikode (referred to as ‘the trial court’), for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, on the allegation that he outraged the modesty of the victim, an officer of the Indian Forest Service who was then serving as the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode. After a comprehensive trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, convicted him, and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. On appeal, the Court of Session, Kozhikode (referred to as ‘the appellate court’), upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to three months’ simple imprisonment. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court.
2. I have heard Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
3. The conviction was primarily based on the victim's oral testimony. The evidence of the mother and a friend of the victim, who were examined as PW5 and PW14, respectively, to whom the victim allegedly disclosed the incident on the same day, as well as the evidence of PW6, Chairperson of the Kerala Women's Commission, PW8, Forest Conservator, and PW9, Chief Conservator of Forest (Vigilance), to whom the victim allegedly informed about the incident a few days later, were also relied upon.
4. Assailing the impugned conviction, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Rajeev, made the following submissions:
• The conviction of the petitioner based solely on the testimony of the victim cannot be legally sustained since the said testimony did not satisfy the test laid down by the Supreme Court for qualifying as a testimony of sterling quality. Reliance was placed on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 21].
• The trial court as well as the appellate court erred in relying on the testimony of PWs 5, 6, 8, 9, and 14, as their evidence is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible.
• There was undue delay of over two years in lodging Ext.P1 complaint, which has not been suitably explained. The established legal principle regarding delay in lodging the FIR has been misunderstood by both the trial court and the appellate court.
• The entire prosecution case was falsely constructed by the forest mafia due to their hostility towards the petitioner, with assistance from the victim.
On the other hand, the submission of Sri E. C. Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, is as follows:
• There was no infirmity in the trial court and the appellate court, relying solely on the testimony of the victim to base the conviction of the petitioner. So long as the testimony of the victim inspires confidence in the trial court, it withstands cross-examination; minor and irrelevant inconsistencies brought out in cross- examination cannot be a reason to discard her evidence.
• The delay in submitting Ext.P1 complaint has been adequately explained.
• The prosecution has successfully established the essential elements of Section 354 of the IPC and proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Since there are concurrent findings of conviction and sentence by the two courts, this court should exercise caution when invoking the revisional powers under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
5. The victim, who was examined as PW1, deposed that on 27/2/1999 at 9.30 a.m., the petitioner called her to the Kozhikode Government Guest House. When she arrived at the room where the petitioner was standing, three people were present, and later all of them left the room. When she was alone with the petitioner, he grabbed her right hand and pulled it towards him, causing her shoulder to brush against his body, which she felt outraged her modesty. She further deposed that she immediately ran out of the Guest House and left the
