Key Takeaways
- An international student testified that bus driver Kartik Kumar refused to open the doors, asked to hug and kiss her hand, and then repeatedly rubbed her breast for about three seconds.
- The victim described feeling scared and believed she could be harmed if she refused, leading her to reluctantly comply with the hand‑kiss.
- CCTV footage showed the victim lifting her arm; prosecutors argued the lighting was deliberately dimmed to conceal the assault.
- Kumar claimed he grabbed her wrist because he thought she had stolen property and later to stop her from pressing the emergency exit button; he denied turning off the lights.
- His employer, Pavlovich Coachlines, noted no prior issues with Kumar but instructed him not to touch passengers after viewing the footage.
- Judge Terry Singh found the victim’s testimony consistent with the video, deemed Kumar’s explanation self‑serving, and ruled the indecent‑assault charge proven.
- A conviction was postponed to address potential immigration consequences for Kumar, with a discharge‑without‑conviction hearing scheduled for late May.
Background of the Incident
On 12 February of the previous year, an international student attending an English‑language school in Auckland’s CBD finished classes at 9:30 p.m. and boarded her regular second bus home in West Auckland around 10:10 p.m. She followed her usual routine: greeting the driver, tagging on with her Auckland Transport card, and sitting down while listening to music on wireless headphones. The bus was otherwise empty, leaving only the driver and the passenger in the vehicle.
Victim’s Testimony
When she noticed the driver attempting to speak to her, she stood to retrieve her fallen headphones and approached the driver, Kartik Kumar. Kumar asked her age, origin, and why she was on the bus. The victim, who had been in New Zealand for only a few months, perceived the conversation as friendly and felt no initial discomfort. As the bus neared her stop, Kumar refused to open the doors and asked to hug her; she declined, citing a boyfriend. He then requested to kiss her hand, and, feeling isolated and frightened that refusing might provoke violence, she reluctantly extended her hand. Kumar kissed her hand and, according to the victim, proceeded to rub her breast repeatedly for approximately three seconds before the doors opened.
Details of the Alleged Assault
The victim described the breast contact as a repeated rubbing rather than a single touch, lasting about three seconds. She stated that after the incident she fled the bus, called her boyfriend, and filed a police report around midnight. Her testimony was delivered via an audio‑visual link from her home country, assisted by a courtroom translator. She emphasized that she felt “quite bad” and “very scared” during the encounter, believing she could be harmed if she resisted Kumar’s advances.
CCTV Evidence Review
The court examined darkened, black‑and‑white CCTV footage from the bus. The video showed the victim lifting her arm at the moment Kumar allegedly kissed her hand. Prosecutor Jazween Mala highlighted that the lighting appeared to dim three minutes into the victim’s ride, arguing that Kumar, who controlled the bus’s lights, had deliberately switched them off to obscure the assault from the camera. Kumar maintained that the lights remained on throughout, claiming any perceived darkness was due to the footage’s original quality.
Defendant’s Account
Kumar testified, aided by a Hindi translator, that he had driven buses for 13 years. He said he heard a loud noise when something fell on the floor, saw the victim move to pick it up, and approached her. He claimed he first grabbed her wrist because he suspected she had taken property left on the bus. He alleged that the victim then threatened to press the emergency exit button, which would open the doors while the bus was moving, prompting him to hold her wrist again to prevent her from falling out. Kumar insisted he never turned off the lights and denied any sexual motivation, describing his actions as attempts to stop theft and protect safety.
Cross‑Examination Highlights
During cross‑examination, Mala pointed out Kumar’s exclusive control over the bus’s lighting and door‑opening mechanisms. She challenged his claim that the headphones were stolen property, noting that no other passenger was present who could have dropped the item. Kumar suggested an earlier passenger might have left the headphones on a seat, which could have fallen while he drove alone with the victim. He also denied ever switching off the lights, even after the prosecutor replayed the professionally lightened CCTV clip that showed a noticeable darkening period.
Employer’s Statement and Response
Andre Dreyer, operations manager for Pavlovich Coachlines and Kumar’s former supervisor, read Kumar’s April 2025 police statement to the court. Dreyer confirmed Kumar had been employed for 18 months, hired through a Fijian agency amid driver shortages, and had previously received no complaints. After viewing the CCTV, Dreyer observed actions resembling a hand‑kiss and a shoulder touch. When confronted, Kumar initially denied any incident; Dreyer showed him the footage, after which Kumar gave his explanation. Dreyer said the company clarified that Kumar must not physically touch passengers and opted to educate him rather than impose disciplinary action. A Pavlovich representative declined further comment, citing the ongoing judicial process.
Judicial Findings and Sentencing Considerations
Judge Terry Singh deemed the victim’s account “consistent” with the CCTV and described Kumar’s evidence as “self‑serving.” He found it “telling” that Kumar would not admit the lights had been switched off, concluding the dimming was deliberate to conceal the assault. The judge accepted the victim’s concessions—that the breast contact lasted roughly three seconds and that she reluctantly consented to the hand‑kiss—as credible. Consequently, Singh ruled the indecent‑assault charge proven. Kumar’s counsel, Angus Graham, requested that a conviction not be entered immediately, warning it could trigger immigration problems for the defendant. The lawyer indicated he might seek a discharge without conviction, and a hearing was set for the end of May to decide whether a discharge or sentencing would proceed.
This summary captures the essential facts, testimonies, evidence, and legal outcomes presented in the original report, adhering to the requested length and structure.