While granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of having committed sexual assault upon a woman, the Kerala High Court observed that Police must examine the case of both the complainant as well as accused.
The bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan cautioned police against unilateral investigation in sexual assault cases solely on the basis of complainant’s version, especially when the complainant is a woman. It further went on to say that the officers investigating the matter must not treat the woman’s version of story as gospel truth and must examine its truthfulness before proceeding against the accused.
Highlighting the tendency to make false allegations of sexual assault and harassment to settle the scores, the bench stated that merely because the de-facto complainant is a woman is no ground to treat her version as gospel truth. It did not just stop there, but also said that if a complaint of sexual assault filed by a woman is found to be false, the officer must fearlessly act against her as per the law.
Impact of false allegations on accused
The court was of the view that false allegations tend to cause irreparable loss to the life and liberty of the accused. A false accusation can damage an individual’s reputation in society, his integrity and overall social stature beyond any repair, and no amount of financial compensation can undo the damage. “The damage caused to a citizen because of false implication cannot be compensated by payment of money alone,” the court observed in its order.
It said that the police should be alert and vigilant in finding the truth in criminal cases during the stage of investigation itself. It was further said that it takes years for the courts to come to the point of hearing the version of accused, and thus, the investigating agency must think twice before filing chargesheets.
Background of the Case:
The complainant alleged in her complaint that accused being the Manager of the company she works with grabbed her arm with sexual intent on 20.12.2024. Based on her complaint, a first information statement was registered under Section 75(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 against the accused at Badiadka Police Station on 07.02.2025. And apprehending arrest, the accused filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 before the High Court of Kerala.
During the arguments, the counsel appearing for accused apprised the Court that the de-facto complainant, being inefficient, was dismissed from her service from the establishment. And the day she was fired, the de-facto complainant abused and threatened the accused and other staff members at the office “that they would soon realize what she is capable of”. The accused then filed a complaint against the de-facto complainant on 14.01.2025 before the SHO, Police Station Badiadka and has proved the service of the complaint by way of receipt which showed that the complaint was received at the Police Station on 14.01.2025 itself at 01:25 PM.
The accused also produced a pen-drive containing an audio-clip before the court, and when it was played, a woman could be heard threatening in the last portion of the clip “he would soon realize what she was capable of.” And with these contentions, the accused prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Court’s Findings and Conclusion:
The court found that the accused had indeed filed a complaint before the Police Station and opined that there was nothing to suggest that the police even considered his complaint. It also accepted the the accused’s version that a lady could be heard threating in the audio-clip produced by him, but left it to the police to investigate whether the voice belonged to the de-facto complainant or not.
It then stated that just because a lady files a complaint, does not mean the IO should blindly accept the same and act against accused on that basis. The bench made it clear that IO must verify the genuineness of the complaint during the investigation itself, and must act against the complainant if the complaint is found to be false. It also said that the court was aware that even when a police officer realizes that a complaint is false, he still does not act against the complainant fearing that it could backfire. however, the bench made it clear that the responsible officer has nothing to worry about and no such apprehension is necessary as the court will safeguard the interest of such officers, if their findings are found correct.
Thus, finding merit in the accused’s case, the court granted him the concession of anticipatory bail by imposing some conditions.
Read full judgement here: Noushad_K_v_State_of_Kerala___anr
