The Kerala High Court has ruled that in criminal cases, including those involving sexual offenses, there is no automatic presumption that a complainant woman's statements are "gospel truth." The court noted an increasing trend of implicating innocent individuals in such matters.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made these observations while granting anticipatory bail to a man accused of sexually harassing a former female employee.

The court criticized the police for not investigating the accused's initial complaint that the woman had verbally abused and threatened him after being terminated for unsatisfactory work. It emphasized that a proper criminal investigation must examine both the complainant’s and the accused’s versions, rather than solely relying on the woman's allegations.

"Investigation cannot be unilateral, based only on the complainant’s claims. The mere fact that the complainant is a woman does not mean her statements must be taken as absolute truth without considering the accused’s case," the court stated in its February 24 order.

Acknowledging the rising instances of false allegations, the court observed that if the police determine the accusations to be untrue, they should take appropriate legal action against the complainant. It further noted that false implications in criminal cases cause irreversible damage to a person’s reputation, social standing, and integrity, which cannot be compensated by money alone.

"The police must be diligent in uncovering the truth at the investigation stage itself. It is their duty to distinguish genuine cases from false ones before submitting the final report," the court added.

In this case, the complainant alleged that the accused, her former manager, had grabbed her arms with sexual intent. However, the accused had previously reported her verbal abuse and threats to the police, even providing an audio recording as evidence.

The court observed that the investigating officer (IO) should have considered both sides and directed the accused to submit the pen drive as evidence. It also instructed the IO to verify its contents and take appropriate legal action if the woman's allegations were found to be false.

Granting anticipatory bail, the court ordered the accused to appear before the IO for questioning. In case of arrest, he was to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties. Additional bail conditions included cooperating with the investigation and refraining from influencing witnesses.