In the Matter at Hand State v. Anilkumar and ors. At a train station in 2016, four car drivers allegedly blocked a woman’s Uber ride by arguing that it was not permitted. According to Sections 354A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused were accused of sexual harassment, unlawful restraint, criminal intimidation, and conducting criminal actions in furtherance of a common goal. The woman allegedly received a threat to have her phone destroyed if she remained in the cab after hailing an Uber from the main gate of the Ernakulam train station.
Analysis of Court Order
All four individuals were, however, exonerated when the prosecution was found to have failed to make its case in a Kerala court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ernakulam. four males who were accused of verbally harassing and threatening a woman for calling an Uber cab at a train station rather than a conventional taxi or an autorickshaw were found not guilty. Magistrate Judge Balram MK pointed out a number of flaws in the prosecution’s case, including the absence of some witnesses who were supposed to testify during the trial, the absence of any video purportedly showing the incident, and the inability to prove that the accused had made physical contact with the woman.
The magistrate court observed that despite the fact that the accused woman claimed to have shot a video of the entire incident and given it to the police, the court never received it. According to the court, this raises extremely severe questions about why the video is being withheld from the court and not presented there. The Court further noted that the prosecution had not proven that there had been any physical contact, approaches containing unwanted and explicit sexual overtures, demands or requests for sexual favours, or sexually charged comments made by the accused. The Court concluded that this would prevent the crime of sexual harassment. The Court then concluded that the other claimed violations would not also lay against the defendants, clearing them of all charges.
CASE NAME – State v. Anilkumar and Ors. C.C 553/2017