New Delhi, April 3 A Delhi court has acquitted the owner of a health club here of charges of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation filed by a former client, holding that the allegations were too "general" and lacked specific details necessary for conviction.
Additional Sessions Judge Nishant Garg acquitted Ashish Bansal of offences under sections 354A (sexual harassment), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
According to the prosecution, Bansal ran a health club with Pooja Sharma and advertised its services. The complainant approached him for weight loss after seeing the advertisement and enrolled in a 10-day course. On July 31, 2015, Bansal allegedly invited her to try a new weight-loss machine at the club. On August 4, 2015, she accepted the invitation and travelled with him to the health club, where she noticed that it had moved to a new location.
When she asked about the machine, Bansal told her it was under repair. He then allegedly placed a perfume bottle under her nose. According to the complainant, she became semi-conscious due to the strong smell and, upon regaining consciousness, found Bansal touching her inappropriately.
When she resisted, Bansal allegedly threatened her, saying he had taken obscene photographs of her and would circulate those online. He further threatened to ruin her reputation, have her killed if she disclosed the incident, and claimed that he had connections with the local police. The complainant submitted her complaint to the police on August 6, 2015.
During cross-examination, the complainant was unable to recall several key details, including the brand or description of the perfume, the method of advertisement through which she had contacted Bansal, the specifics of the 10-day course, the number of meetings with him over four months, and the places where they met.
"Upon carefully examining the testimony of this important witness, it is seen that the testimony of this witness lacks several details which are crucial for determining the guilt of the accused," the court said in its March 30 order.
The judge also noted the prior acquaintance between the parties for more than four months, observing, "Apparently, the accused never tried to make any physical advances during all this time, and the relations between them were cordial."
The court questioned the complainant's conduct, noting that she did not leave the health club even after learning that the new machine was not at the premises, nor did she immediately inform the police or her family about the alleged incident.
It further found inconsistencies in her account. While her initial complaint mentioned no other details besides "physical harassment," her testimony in court included additional allegations that Bansal had taken off her shirt and clicked inappropriate photographs, which the judge termed an improved version.
The court also expressed serious concerns over the investigation, observing that "no investigation of any worth has been conducted" by the investigating officer. It noted that the officer failed to verify the existence of the "old" health club, did not examine the owners or neighbours of the club, did not secure public witnesses, failed to seize the alleged perfume bottle and inquire about or seize the complainant's clothing from the incident.
The judge also highlighted the unexplained four-day delay between the submission of the complaint on August 6 and the registration of the FIR on August 10, 2015.
Further, the Forensic Sciences Laboratory (FSL) report found no obscene photographs on Bansal's mobile phone. The court also ruled out an offence under section 328 (causing hurt by means of a stupefying drug) of the IPC, noting the absence of any medical examination of the complainant or seizure of the perfume bottle to establish the administration of a stupefying substance.
The court found the defence version "probable", wherein Bansal claimed false implication due to a dispute involving a separate FIR filed by co-owner Pooja Sharma against the complainant's friend, Rahul Sharma. It noted that the complainant had admitted meeting Pooja Sharma at least once.
"Considering the general nature of allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the accused without disclosing specific details, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be termed as that of 'sterling quality' and it will not be safe to base conviction of the accused on its basis without corroboration. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is accordingly, acquitted," the court ordered.