Kerala Court acquits 4 auto rickshaw drivers accused of threatening woman for hailing Uber taxi

A Kerala court recently acquitted four men who were accused of verbally abusing and threatening a woman for hailing an Uber taxi at a railway station instead of a regular taxi or an autorickshaw. [State v Anilkumar & Ors.].A complaint lodged in 2016 alleged that the four men, who were stated to be auto drivers, had obstructed the passage of a woman who had hailed an Uber cab at a railway station while stating that Ubers were not allowed at the station..The court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ernakulam, however, acquitted all four men on finding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Among other deficiencies in the prosecution's case, magistrate judge Balram MK noted that certain witnesses did not give their deposition during the trial, there was a failure to produce video footage allegedly taken of the incident, and a failure to establish that there had been any physical contact between the accused and the woman. .The four accused had been charged with committing offences punishable under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506(i) (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (committing criminal act in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The prosecution's case was that in November 2016, the woman got into an Uber taxi from the main entrance of the Ernakulam railway station. The accused were alleged to have obstructed the taxi, saying that there was no entry for Uber taxis inside the railway station premises.The woman is stated started to take a video of the incident when the accused allegedly threatened her by saying that they would destroy the phone if she stays in the Uber taxi..The magistrate court noted that even though the woman in question had said that she had recorded a video of the entire incident and then handed over the video to the police, the same was not provided to the court.The court opined that this "raises very serious suspicion as to why this video is not produced before the court and why the same is kept away from the court.".Moreover, the Court observed that it was not the prosecution's case that there had been any physical contact or advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or a demand or request for sexual favours or any sexually colored remarks by the accused. Therefore, the offence of sexual harassment would not be attracted, the Court found.The Court proceeded to find that the other offences alleged would also not lie against the accused and, therefore, acquitted them..The accused were represented by advocate N Satheesh.Assistant Public Prosecutor Sheeja EK appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]