Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Neelalohithadasan Nadar In 1999 Sexual Harassment Case

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment on Monday, allowing the criminal revision petition filed by Dr. Nadar against his earlier conviction by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, in 2004, which was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in 2005.

The case stemmed from an incident alleged to have taken place on February 27, 1999, at the Kozhikode Government Guest House. The complainant, then serving as Divisional Forest Officer, accused the Minister of grabbing her hand and pulling her towards him in a manner that, she stated, outraged her modesty.

In September 2004, the trial court found Dr. Nadar guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment. On appeal, the Sessions Court reduced the sentence to three months while affirming the conviction.

Dr. Nadar challenged these findings before the High Court through a criminal revision petition in 2006.

The High Court's judgment placed strong emphasis on the evidentiary standards required in cases of sexual offences, particularly when conviction is sought solely on the testimony of the victim.

The Court noted the delay in filing the FIR, lodged more than two years after the alleged incident. While the complainant initially explained the delay as fear of acting against a sitting minister, Justice Edappagath noted that she continued to remain silent even after Dr. Nadar resigned in February 2000. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for this prolonged delay, describing it as “fatal” to the prosecution's case.

The Court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony. Key details, such as her alleged immediate disclosure of the incident to her mother and a close friend, were absent from her earliest statements but appeared later, leading the Court to conclude that these were “later developments to strengthen the prosecution case.”

The lower courts had relied on the depositions of the complainant's relatives and colleagues. The High Court ruled that such testimonies amounted to hearsay and were inadmissible under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act.

While reiterating that conviction can rest on the sole testimony of a victim, the Court stressed that such testimony must be of “sterling quality”—consistent, credible, and free from doubt. In this case, the complainant's shifting versions and lack of supporting evidence meant her testimony did not meet that threshold.

The Court also noted that individuals present at the Guest House during the incident, including one whom the complainant mistakenly identified, were either not examined by the prosecution or gave evidence contradicting her version.

Justice Edappagath concluded, “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.”

Setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of all charges. The Court held that both the trial court and the appellate court had erred in their appreciation of evidence, particularly by failing to apply the correct legal tests to the complainant's testimony.

Case Title: Dr. A Neelalohithadasan Nadar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 567

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 312/ 2006

Counsel for the Petitioner: S Rajeev, V Vinay, M S Aneer, Sarath K P, Anilkumar C R, K S Kiran Krishnan

Counsel for Respondent: E C Bineesh (SR. PP)

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment