Delhi Court Acquits Man Who Was Alleged Of Molesting A DU Student In 2015[Read Judgment]

While exonerating Singh of all charges, the Metropolitan Magistrate Sonam Gupta (Mahila Court) said,

"Indisputably, a conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained, however, in the present case, the complainant has made material improvements in her statements. In view of the same, the testimony of the complainant is not trustworthy and casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution."

The prosecutrix had alleged that Singh abused her and used sexually colored language and gestures against her, in the middle of a crossroad in Tilak Nagar area of West Delhi. Based on the alleged incident which occurred in 2015, the prosecutrix filed a written complaint and submitted her phone to the Police, on which she had clicked pictures of the accused, along with his bike's registration number. The prosecutrix had also alleged the accused had criminally intimidated her for taking his pictures.

Accordingly, charges were framed against Singh for sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and outraging modesty of a woman under Sections 354A, 506 and 509 of IPC, respectively.

Denying all the allegations, Singh said that it was in fact the prosecutrix who had stopped him in the middle of the road unnecessarily and on being asked to give way, she clicked his pictures. He also alleged that the prosecutrix was member of the AAP party and the case was nothing but a publicity stunt; which was evident from the fact that the very day the alleged incident happened, she uploaded his pictures on social media and looted appreciation. Subsequently, his pictures were also aired by national news channels which called him a pervert and what not.

The court noted that there were various contradictions and improvements in the complainant's version and thus her testimony couldn't be relied upon. Further, her statements could not be corroborated since despite the alleged incident having occurred at a public road, no public witness had been produced. Rather, the prosecution had only examined formal witnesses/ police witnesses.

In these circumstances the court said,

"The place of incident was a public road and expected to be crowded at the time of incident, i.e., at 08:15 PM and no public witnesses was examined in the present case. Thus, non-examination of eye witnesses, who could have supported the case of the prosecution, casts a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the version of the complainant is itself doubtful."

Stating that benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused, the court acquitted Singh of all charges.

[Read Judgment Here]