Delhi Court Acquits Father and Son in Neb Sarai Molestation Case
A Delhi court has acquitted a father-son duo of molestation, disrobing attempt, house trespass, and criminal intimidation charges, observing that the prosecution's case suffered from fatal, irreconcilable infirmities and failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused, identified as Pramod, alias Akash, and his 65-year-old father, Mohar Singh, had been booked at the Neb Sarai Police Station in connection with an alleged incident dating back to February 2018.
In an order dated August 25, Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi cleared both men of all charges after finding that the case had collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. The court noted that the prosecutrix directly exonerated Mohar Singh during her testimony, categorically deposing that the accused had done nothing against her. The judge observed that while she had made allegations against him in an earlier statement recorded before a magistrate, such a statement did not constitute substantive evidence and could only be used for corroboration or contradiction.
Evaluating the allegations against Pramod, the court found that the woman's testimony was riddled with progressive improvements and material contradictions. The prosecution's case suffered a further blow when its sole public eyewitness, Vakil, alias Parvinder, turned hostile during cross-examination. Though initially cited as having rescued the woman and witnessed the subsequent assault, the witness testified under oath that he was not present at the relevant time and had not seen any beating or molestation, leaving the prosecution without independent corroboration for several charges.
The judge also highlighted serious procedural violations by the police, noting that the 65-year-old father had merely gone to the police station to inquire about his son's arrest before being taken into custody himself. The court stated that this, coupled with violations of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, gave immense weight to the defence's claim of malicious prosecution stemming from police vengeance.
Additionally, the court pointed out that the woman admitted to signing blank papers and providing thumb impressions to the police. This admission, combined with the investigating officer's acknowledgement that the written complaint was in his own handwriting, supported the defence argument that the complaint was drafted by the police.
The judge also flagged critical investigative lapses, including the failure of the police to seize the woman's allegedly torn clothes, the non-recovery of the weapon purportedly used to threaten her family, and the failure to enlist independent witnesses despite the alleged incident occurring on a public street.
