Delhi HC upholds acquittal in molestation case

New Delhi, Jan 9 The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the city police against the acquittal of a man accused of molestation, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s assessment of evidence contained no infirmity.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the 2016 sessions court judgment acquitting the accused of charges under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in an FIR registered at the Defence Colony police station.

In its decision, the Delhi High Court observed that the trial court had correctly appreciated the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony, along with the unexplained delay in registering the FIR.

“The learned trial court rightly noted the contradictions and the improvements in the statement of the complainant… and rightly acquitted the respondent,” Justice Krishna observed while dismissing the prosecution’s appeal under Section 378 CrPC.

According to the case records, the complainant, who was working as an ayah in a school in Defence Colony through a placement agency, had alleged that on December 3, 2011, the accused misbehaved with her on the school premises, touched her inappropriately and attempted to rape her.

An FIR, however, came to be registered only on January 2, 2012. The Delhi High Court noted that while the complainant had alleged an attempt to rape in her initial complaint, her testimony before the trial court did not support such an allegation.

“Clearly, the testimony of the prosecutrix in the Court does not establish any act of attempted rape,” Justice Krishna said, adding that there were “material improvements” in her version.

The Delhi HC further noted the statement of a co-worker, appearing as a defence witness, who asserted that she was with the complainant during the entire period of the alleged incident and that no such incident had taken place.

It observed that no material contradiction could be elicited from her cross-examination.

On the issue of delay, Justice Krishna said that there was no explanation as to why the complainant neither approached the police immediately nor called the PCR after the alleged incident.

“No explanation is forthcoming for her waiting till 08.12. 2011 to make the complaint,” the order said.

The Delhi High Court also referred to evidence showing that complaints had been made against the complainant’s work conduct shortly before the alleged incident and that her services had been withdrawn by the placement agency.

This, Justice Krishna observed, lent credence to the defence plea that the complaint was motivated.

Concluding that the view taken by the trial court was a “possible and reasonable view” based on the evidence on record, the Delhi High Court held that there was no merit in the prosecution’s appeal and dismissed it.

“The prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the respondent (accused) has been rightly acquitted. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed,” ruled Justice Krishna, affirming the acquittal order.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor