Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a review petition challenging its January order upholding the acquittal of Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar, former Forest Minister of Kerala, accused of outraging the modesty of a woman Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the review petition in chambers, which challenged its January 27 order wherein the bench said that it has no good grounds to interfere with the Kerala High Court's judgment acquitting Dr Nadar of all charges. 

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 Kerala High Court's order allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Dr. Nadar, placing strong emphasis on the evidentiary standards required in cases of sexual offences, particularly when conviction is sought solely on the testimony of the victim. It 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 remained silent even after Dr. Nadar resigned in February 2000. Therefore, it found no satisfactory explanation for this prolonged delay, describing it as “fatal” to the prosecution's case.

Setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court acquitted the petitioner of all charges. It 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. Against this, the complainant first filed a special leave petition and then subsequently a review petition, both of which have been dismissed. 

Case Details: |R.P.(Crl.) No. 000589 / 2026

 



Tags: