Ghaziabad Court Acquits Man in 12-Year-Old POCSO Case Over Evidence Shortfall
In a significant legal development, a man accused of criminal assault with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty and attempting to rape a minor has been acquitted by a Ghaziabad court after a protracted 12-year legal battle. The acquittal was granted as both the complainant and the minor survivor remained untraceable throughout the entire period, and the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations with concrete evidence.
Prosecution Fails to Examine Key Witnesses
Special POCSO judge Lal Babu Yadav noted that the prosecution did not examine the victim, who was a crucial witness for the case. This omission led the court to rule that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt in the absence of sufficient evidence. Consequently, the man was acquitted of offences under Sections 452 (house trespass), 354A (sexual harassment by a man against a woman), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Case Background and Legal Proceedings
The case originated from an FIR registered at Sihani Gate police station on February 20, 2014, by the minor’s father. He alleged that on February 17, 2014, the man attempted to sexually assault his daughter, who was approximately 16 years old at the time, and fled upon seeing her mother. Initially, the case was registered under Sections 452, 354, and 506 of the IPC.
The accused was arrested the following day, and after the minor’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC before a magistrate on May 16, 2014, the police added Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. A chargesheet was filed on November 20, 2014. However, the court framed charges only after a decade, on July 9, 2024, with the accused denying the allegations and opting for a trial.
Witness Testimonies and Defense Arguments
During the trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses: two investigators and a teacher from the minor’s school to verify her age. They argued that the accused unlawfully entered the plaintiff’s home and assaulted the minor daughter. In contrast, the defense counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution had not examined the plaintiff and the victim to support its claims, highlighting a critical gap in the evidence.
Court’s Decision Based on Untraceable Witnesses
Judge Yadav observed that despite multiple orders issued on January 6, January 21, and February 5, 2026, summoning the plaintiff and victim through non-bailable warrants, they could not be produced in court. A court witness, CW1, filed a record stating that both individuals were untraceable, supported by a signed letter from the councillor of ward 72 declaring that the family had vacated the address long ago.
Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the prosecution was unable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge emphasized that in the absence of key testimonies and corroborative evidence, the accused deserved acquittal, underscoring the legal principle that guilt must be established with certainty.
