-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:01 PM
In a case involving sexual harassment, Kozhikode Session Court ruled in Civic Chandran @ C V Kuttan v State of Kerala that a woman's "sexually provocative apparel" would render Section 354A of the IPC inadmissible as evidence.
Session Court while considering the bail application stated that physical contact and advances involving uninvited and explicit sexual overtures must occur in order to attract this Section. A desire or request for sexual favours must exist. There must be comments with a sexual undertone. The images submitted with the bail application by the defendant show the de facto complainant wearing dresses with certain sexually suggestive elements (sic). Therefore, Section 354A will not be a strong argument against the accused.
The Court went on to say that it is inconceivable to think that Chandran, a physically challenged man in his 70s, could have abused the complainant sexually. Even if there was physical contact, it is inconceivable that a 74-year-old man who is physically impaired could drag the de facto complaint into his lap and touch her breast while doing so.
The prosecution claimed that Chandran sexually attacked the de-facto complainant while she was at a camp he organised. He allegedly grabbed her hand and led her to a remote location.
