New Delhi, March 30 A Delhi court has acquitted a man charged with sexually harassing and criminally intimidating his neighbor, stating that the complainant's testimony suffered from multiple inconsistencies.
In her recent ruling, Judicial Magistrate Anamika also stated that the testimony failed to inspire confidence.
"The complainant has given different versions of the allegations at different stages of the investigation and trial. Therefore, the complainant's testimony lacks credibility and cannot be considered sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the court said in its March 20 judgment.
The accused was acquitted of all charges under Sections 354 (assault or the use of criminal force with the intent to outrage the modesty of a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"It is clear that there are multiple inconsistencies in the deposition of the complainant witness. There is no other witness to the alleged incident, and the identity of the accused himself is shrouded in doubt, as the complainant herself named different people in her separate statements as the perpetrators of the offense," the court said.
According to the prosecution, the complainant was subjected to escalating instances of sexual harassment, including lecherous songs and sexually explicit comments, by the accused and his associates since she moved into her new apartment in July 2021. The situation escalated in September of that year when her scooter was vandalized. She also alleged that she was groped.
Advocate Prashant Diwan appeared for the accused.
The complainant initially stated in her complaint that she was groped by a man named Baljeet on the stairway, but in her statement before the magistrate, she stated that she did not know the names of her neighbors involved in the harassment. She also presented a completely different version of the incident before the magistrate.
The complainant was confronted about the contradictions in her deposition before the court and recorded statements during the investigation.
"There are multiple contradictions, discrepancies, and improvements between the statements given by the complainant at the stage of investigation and trial," the judge said.
She also alleged in her cross-examination that she went to the police three days after the PCR call, but a police witness deposed that she filed her complaint on the same day as the PCR call.
The judge held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of credibility of their star witness testimony, acquitting the accused of all charges.