Sole Testimony Of Victim Of Sexual Abuse, If Found Reliable, Is Sufficient To Hold Perpetrator Guilty Of Misconduct In Departmental Enquiry : Uttarakhand HC [Read Judgment]

The Uttarakhand High Court has observed that sole testimony, of the victim of sexual abuse, is sufficient to hold the perpetrator guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry, if it is found reliable.

One of the contentions raised by the petitioner (who was a guest instructor for the para- medic course) in this case, challenging the order of dismissal from employment, was that he was held guilty on the self-serving sole testimony of the complainant (Trainee); no other witness had corroborated the complainant's testimony; and the complainant's self-serving evidence cannot form the basis for holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.

The Court noted the well settled principle laid down in various Apex Court decisions that an evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction, and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The bench comprising of the Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justce R.C. Khulbe observed:

As the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, in a criminal case involving sexual harassment and molestation, would suffice if it is otherwise reliable, there is no justifiable reason not to accept the sole testimony of a victim, of sexual harassment and molestation, in a departmental inquiry as the enquiry held by a domestic Tribunal is not, unlike a Criminal Court, governed by the strict and technical rules of the Evidence Act. A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court observed that, in this case, the testimony of the complainant gives graphic and shocking details of acts of sexual molestation perpetrated by the petitioner on her. It said that the Enquiry Committee cannot be faulted for largely relying on the testimony of the complainant.

Other issues were also found against the petitioner and the Court said that it finds no reason to interfere either with the inquiry proceedings or with the order of punishment of dismissal from service imposed. 

Case no.: Writ Petition (S/B) No.153 of 2013
Case name: Bhuwan Chandra Pandey Vs.Union of India
Coram: Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justce R.C. Khulbe 
Counsel: Advocates Sanjay Raturi, Sanjay Bhatt,

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment