Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court

Physical Contact During Resistance Not Sexual Harassment: Kerala High Court

15 October 2024 12:20 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Kerala quashed the FIR filed against Dr. P.K. Baby, a professor and Director of the Youth Welfare Board at CUSAT, for allegedly assaulting a female student during a youth festival. The court ruled that the complaint, filed months after the incident, lacked bona fides and did not establish any intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant.

The alleged incident took place on March 1, 2024, during the annual University Youth Festival at the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). The complainant, a student and stage convenor, accused Dr. Baby of touching her inappropriately when she attempted to retrieve an oil lamp after the event ended. According to her, Dr. Baby forcibly grabbed her left breast despite her resistance.

However, the complaint was lodged with the university authorities on June 28, 2024, and the FIR was registered more than four months after the incident. Dr. Baby argued that the delay in filing the complaint was an afterthought and pointed out inconsistencies in the allegations.

Justice A. Badharudeen highlighted several crucial points in the judgment:

The court noted that the complainant took 127 days to report the incident, which raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The delay, coupled with the political backdrop surrounding the strict enforcement of university rules during the festival, suggested that the FIR may have been filed out of animosity toward the petitioner.

The court emphasized that to establish an offense under Section 354 IPC (assault with intent to outrage modesty), the prosecution must prove the accused intended to outrage the complainant’s modesty. In this case, the physical contact occurred as part of the petitioner’s attempt to enforce university guidelines, and there was no prima facie evidence of sexual intent.

Dr. Baby was acting under university instructions to ensure compliance with festival regulations, which mandated that all events conclude by 9:00 p.m. The court found that the alleged physical contact occurred during a confrontation when the complainant attempted to re-enter the auditorium after the scheduled time, and it could not be construed as sexual harassment under Section 354A IPC.

The court quashed the FIR, ruling that the complaint lacked credibility and failed to establish any criminal offense. However, it warned Dr. Baby against taking retaliatory actions that could hinder the complainant’s studies, ensuring that she could continue her education without interference.

 

Date of Decision: October 10, 2024

Dr. P.K. Baby vs. The State of Kerala

Similar News