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 Nov 23
• The judge said there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegations were true

SINGAPORE — A hypnotherapist was acquitted of molestation on Tuesday (Nov 23) after the judge presiding over the case found that there were insufficient grounds to prove that the allegations were true.

Sreekamal Asante Parambil Kalesan, 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 court and the woman cannot be named.

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 that there were no witnesses to the alleged incident inside the consultation room and there was no “independent objective evidence to corroborate or contradict the allegations” of the complainant and denial of the accused.

As such, he was not able to find Sreekamal guilty of committing the alleged offence and it would have been “unsafe” to convict him.

The judge then touched on several points that had raised doubts about the truth of the allegations.

For instance, he said that 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 that there was no objective evidence given during the trial that could prove whether she was in a state of hypnosis or not.

“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 that were irreconcilable,” he said.

The complainant had initially testified that her eyes were open when she was kissed, but later 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,” District Judge Ng said.

“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 girl's mother had testified that her daughter revealed that she moved away when Sreekamal tried to kiss her.

However, the mother also confirmed that her daughter did not inform her that she was kissed.

Another material inconsistency, District Judge Ng noted, 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 that the girl could not adequately account for the various inconsistencies in her evidence in court.

At the same time, there were no material inconsistencies in the evidence given by Sreekamal that called into question his credibility, the judge added.

However, he noted 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.”

The judge 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.

He also said 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.”