A Delhi court has acquitted a father and son in a 2018 molestation case, slamming the police investigation for fatal contradictions and procedural lapses.

  • The court acquitted Pramod (alias Akash) and Mohar Singh due to irreconcilable contradictions in evidence.
  • The victim herself exonerated the father, Mohar Singh, during her deposition.
  • The sole public eyewitness turned hostile, claiming he was not present at the scene.
  • Evidence suggested the police may have drafted the complaint using blank papers and thumb impressions.

New Delhi: In a significant ruling, a Delhi court has acquitted a father and son in a molestation and criminal intimidation case, stating that the prosecution's case had "collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions." Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi delivered the verdict, highlighting "fatal, irreconcilable infirmities" in the investigation conducted by the Neb Sarai Police Station.

The accused, Pramod (alias Akash), and his 65-year-old father, Mohar Singh, had been facing trial since the case was registered in February 2018. The court's decision not only clears the duo of molestation and attempted disrobing but also raises alarming questions regarding police conduct and potential malicious prosecution.

Read Also:Supreme Court Orders Schools to Train Students as Waste Management Educators

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this case serves as a stark reminder of how procedural lapses and investigative failures can lead to the potential incarceration of innocent individuals. When the state fails to maintain the integrity of its evidence, the entire judicial process risks being weaponized against citizens.

"The prosecution's case failed to cross the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt due to fundamental inconsistencies in testimony and evidence collection."

A major turning point in the trial was the victim's own testimony. While she had initially made allegations against Mohar Singh before a magistrate, she explicitly stated in court that "accused Mohar Singh has done nothing against me." Furthermore, the prosecution's primary eyewitness, Vakil (alias Parvinder), turned hostile during cross-examination, stating under oath that he was not present during the alleged incident.

Systemic Failures in Investigation

The court took a dim view of the investigative process, noting that the victim admitted to signing blank papers and providing thumb impressions to the police. This, combined with the Investigating Officer's admission that the complaint was in his own handwriting, strongly supported the defense's claim that the complaint was fabricated by the police.

The judge highlighted several critical lapses, including:

  • Failure to seize the victim's allegedly torn clothing.
  • Failure to recover any weapon used for criminal intimidation.
  • The arrest of a 65-year-old man who was merely inquiring about his son.
  • Failure to join any independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a public area.
Did You Know?: Under Section 41A of the CrPC, police are required to follow specific procedures before making an arrest, which the court found were violated in this case.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What were the main reasons for the acquittal?
The primary reasons were the victim exonerating the father, the eyewitness turning hostile, and evidence suggesting the police drafted the complaint themselves.

2. What does 'Malicious Prosecution' mean in this context?
It refers to the defense's claim that the police initiated legal proceedings with bad intentions or vengeance rather than following proper legal protocols.