New Delhi, Jan 9 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has rejected an appeal from the city police regarding the acquittal of an individual charged with molestation, declaring that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court's evaluation of the evidence was sound.

A single-judge Bench led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna affirmed the 2016 sessions court's ruling, which cleared the accused of violations under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), linked to a report filed at the Defence Colony police station.

In its ruling, the Delhi High Court remarked that the trial court had effectively addressed the significant discrepancies and inconsistencies found in the complainant's testimony, as well as the unaccounted delay in filing the FIR.

“The trial court judiciously recognized the contradictions and improvements in the complainant's statement… and appropriately acquitted the respondent,” noted Justice Krishna while dismissing the prosecution's appeal under Section 378 CrPC.

According to case documents, the complainant, employed as an ayah in a Defence Colony school via a placement agency, claimed that on December 3, 2011, the accused acted inappropriately towards her, touching her without consent and attempting to sexually assault her.

However, the FIR was only registered on January 2, 2012. The Delhi High Court pointed out that, although the complainant initially alleged an attempted rape, her testimony in court did not corroborate this claim.

“Clearly, the testimony of the prosecutrix in the Court does not establish any act of attempted rape,” stated Justice Krishna, emphasizing that there were “material improvements” in her account.

The Delhi HC also referenced the testimony of a co-worker, who served as a defence witness, asserting that she was present with the complainant throughout the alleged incident and that no such occurrence took place.

It was noted that no significant contradictions emerged during her cross-examination.

Regarding the delay, Justice Krishna commented that there was no justification for the complainant's failure to contact the police immediately or to alert the PCR after the alleged event.

“No explanation is provided for her waiting until 08.12.2011 to file the complaint,” stated the order.

The Delhi High Court also acknowledged evidence indicating that complaints had been made regarding the complainant's work behavior shortly before the alleged incident and that the placement agency had terminated her services.

This, according to Justice Krishna, supported the defence's argument that the complaint was motivated.

Concluding that the trial court's perspective was “a possible and reasonable view” based on the evidence presented, the Delhi High Court determined that the prosecution's appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.

“The prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the respondent (accused) has been rightly acquitted. Thus, the appeal is dismissed,” Justice Krishna confirmed, upholding the acquittal.