The Adequacy Of Sole Victim Testimony In Departmental Inquiries For Sexual Harassment Cases

Judgement Given On : 15/06/2020

Case facts

In the case of Bhuwan Chandra Pandey vs. Union of India and Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on June 15, 2020, a significant question came to the fore: Does the sole testimony of a victim of sexual harassment suffice to establish the culpability of the alleged perpetrator in a departmental inquiry? This case explores the pivotal role of a victim’s testimony when ascertaining the guilt of an accused party in such administrative proceedings.

Following the completion of a night training exercise, the petitioner, alongside other individuals, including two female trainees, was traveling in the cabin of a truck returning to Gwaldam station. During this journey, the petitioner faced allegations of molesting one of the female trainees and engaging in sexual harassment. The victim, referred to as the “Complainant,” filed a complaint the subsequent day, instigating an internal committee (“IC”) inquiry into the matter.

The IC rendered a verdict of guilt, primarily relying on circumstantial evidence, including:

  • Testimony from Ms. M. Ette, who attested that the Complainant displayed visible distress, uttering phrases such as “please…please,” and had rested her head on her shoulder.
  • Dr. Pradeep Joshi’s account of encountering the Complainant in a distressed state at Kandhar stop, during which she was weeping.

The IC dismissed the petitioner’s assertions that the Complainant’s distress resulted from her exclusion from the night navigation exercise and that his reputation suffered due to his stringent instructional approach. Additionally, the IC did not accept the petitioner’s explanation that the physical contact might have been accidental, resulting from the rough roads and jolts.

The Legal Argument

In the court, the petitioner contended that he had been pronounced guilty based solely on the Complainant’s testimony, without corroboration from other witnesses. He argued that such solitary testimony should not suffice as a foundation for his guilt. In response, the Union of India argued that a departmental inquiry necessitates a lower standard of proof compared to a criminal trial. The threshold for establishing guilt is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. They posited that the Complainant’s sole testimony, substantiated by circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.

The Court’s Verdict on Circumstantial Evidence

The court found that the IC had reasonable grounds to place faith in the Complainant’s statement. Her testimony, coupled with Ms. M. Ette’s account of the Complainant’s distress and the immediate lodging of a complaint by the Complainant following the incident, constituted adequate evidence to establish the petitioner’s guilt.

The IC took note that the petitioner had approached the Complainant on multiple occasions at different locations, and his father, a Deputy Inspector General in the Sashastra Seema Bal, had also met with the Complainant at Dr. K.K. Pal’s residence. Dr. K.K. Pal testified that the petitioner’s father had exerted pressure on him to convince the Complainant to withdraw her case. In the context of a departmental inquiry, these undisputed facts, along with Dr. K.K. Pal’s evidence, were deemed sufficient to prove the charges against the petitioner.

The court underscored that even circumstantial, or hearsay evidence could be admissible in departmental inquiries.

The Court’s Verdict on the Sole Testimony of the Complainant

Regarding the sole testimony of the Complainant, the court made several salient observations:

  1. The court referenced precedents asserting that a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not considered an accomplice to the crime but rather a victim of another’s illicit desires.
  2. The Indian Evidence Act does not mandate the corroboration of the Complainant’s testimony in material particulars.
  3. In cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc., the court should accept the victim’s evidence unless there exist compelling reasons necessitating corroboration.
  4. The court noted that a disciplinary proceeding fundamentally differs from a criminal trial. The standard of proof requisite is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court’s ruling in the Bhuwan Chandra Pandey case underscores the significance of a victim’s testimony in departmental inquiries related to sexual harassment. The court’s decision reaffirms that the sole testimony of a victim, if deemed credible, can constitute adequate evidence to establish guilt. It also underscores that departmental inquiries are not bound by the stringent rules of evidence applied in criminal trials, and the standard of proof required is the preponderance of probabilities. This case establishes a precedent that recognizes the pivotal role of victim testimony and the need for sensitivity when addressing instances of sexual harassment within disciplinary proceedings.