Hypnotherapist acquitted of molesting teenage client as judge finds insufficient evidence
- A 46-year-old hypnotherapist was accused of molesting his female teenage client in 2017
- He was acquitted by District Judge John Ng on Tuesday
- District Judge Ng said there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegations were true
Story Continues Below Advertisement
Sreekamal Asante Parambil Kalesan, now 46, was on trial for a single charge of outraging the modesty of his then 17-year-old female client, the complainant, by kissing her right cheek and forehead during a hypnotherapy session on April 9 in 2017.A gag order has been imposed by the courts, and the woman cannot be named.
Story Continues Below Advertisement
If Sreekamal had been found guilty, he could have been jailed for up to two years, fined or caned, or faced any combination of these punishments.In delivering his verdict, District Judge John Ng said there were no witnesses to the alleged incident inside the consultation room, nor was there an “independent objective evidence to corroborate or contradict the allegations” of the complainant and denial of the accused.
S$2,500 fine for man who molested and harassed female subordinate repeatedly
As such, he was not able to find Sreekamal guilty of committing the alleged offence, and that it would have been “unsafe” to convict him.
The judge then touched on several points that had raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations.
For instance, he said the complainant had difficulty recalling what happened when she was hypnotised.
She had agreed that during hypnosis, she was in a state between consciousness and unconsciousness, which affected her memory and what she was able to recollect about the events that took place during the course of the hypnotism.
There was also the matter of whether the complainant was hypnotised or not during the alleged incident.
District Judge Ng said there was no objective evidence cited during the trial which could prove whether she was in a state of hypnosis or not.
3 years 3 months’ jail for man who repeatedly molested 12-year-old stepdaughter
“Regardless of the true state of her mind at that time, what was important and more pertinent to this court was that the complainant’s version of how she was kissed contained inconsistencies which were irreconcilable,” he said.
The complainant had initially testified her eyes were open when she was kissed, but subsequently said that they were closed.
“This was a material inconsistency that touched on an essential aspect of the charge against the accused — how the accused had kissed her,” said District Judge Ng.
“Whether her eyes were open or closed also had an impact and an implication on how she reacted or would have reacted, depending on whether her eyes were open or closed.”
He also said that the complainant’s mother had testified that her daughter revealed that she moved away when Sreekamal tried to kiss her.
However, the older woman also confirmed that her daughter did not inform her that she was kissed.
Another material inconsistency, said District Judge Ng, was about whether and when Sreekamal had hugged her.
“This was not a minor discrepancy. The accused denied hugging her,” he said.
District Judge Ng said the complainant could not adequately account for the various inconsistencies in her evidence in court.
Meanwhile, there were no material inconsistencies in the evidence given by Sreekamal that called into question his credibility, added the judge.
Nevertheless, he said that it was not suggested by Sreekamal that the complainant had fabricated the incident.
“Instead, the suggestion by the defence was that she could have been mistaken as to what had really happened due to her being under hypnosis.
“Regardless of the plausibility and strength of such a suggestion, the burden is not on the defence to prove that the complainant was in a state of hypnosis and had therefore imagined the acts of being kissed by the accused.”
He said it was enough for the defence to show that there were reasonable doubts that Sreekamal had committed the acts as alleged by the complainant.
Meanwhile, the judge added that it is not enough that the complaint could be true. Rather, evidence “must show that the allegations are true”.
“If there is any reasonable doubt that had been raised as to the guilt of the accused, he cannot be convicted on the charge.”
