24 September,2026 07:54 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
The court held that the sole investigating officer’s testimony was insufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Representation Pic/iStock
In yet another case highlighting prosecution lapses, a 68-year-old man accused of molesting his female employee has been acquitted recently by a court in Kalyan, over 14 years after the case was registered.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, with the glaring fact that apart from the investigating police officer, not a single prosecution witness, including the complainant, testified before the court during the trial.
With no direct or supporting evidence produced to substantiate the allegations, the accused received the benefit of doubt and was acquitted.
According to the prosecution case, the complainant worked as a compounder at the accused's clinic. The allegations related to three incidents on April 28, May 7, and May 11, 2012, all during the afternoon.
Advocate Majeed Memon. Pic/By Special Arrangement
April 28: After she complained about receiving Rs 100 less than her salary, the accused allegedly put his arm around her waist and tried to kiss her. She allegedly resisted and left.
May 7: He allegedly called her to his residence on the pretext of storing belongings there and again tried to embrace and kiss her. She allegedly fled.
May 11: He allegedly called her to the clinic when no patients were present, touched her chest, kissed her and demanded sexual favours.
The complainant approached the Mahatma Phule police station on May 13, 2012, alleging that the accused had repeatedly violated her modesty and caused her mental distress. Police registered a case and handed the investigation to Assistant Police Inspector BR Kumbhar.
During the investigation, police conducted a spot inspection and prepared a scene-of-offence panchnama. Statements of witnesses were also recorded. The prosecution subsequently filed a charge sheet against the accused. During his trial, the accused denied the allegations and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
The prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of investigating officer Kumbhar, who detailed the investigation, spot panchnama and charge sheet. Neither the complainant nor any other prosecution witness testified. No defence or court witnesses were examined either. During cross-examination, Kumbhar admitted there were other shops near the alleged scene and that other witnesses had learnt about the incident from the complainant.
With no independent oral, documentary or circumstantial evidence, the court held that the sole investigating officer's testimony was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of this, the court ordered the acquittal of the accused.
Senior advocate Majeed Memon said, "This is yet another glaring instance of failure of justice on account of inordinate delay in disposing of a criminal case. Invariably, in all criminal cases in our country, the witnesses are normally not very sophisticated people; most of them are rustic and uneducated and, at times, do not even have permanent addresses. If a criminal trial begins over a decade after the incident, the witnesses, including scientific evidence, become unavailable or their [witness] memory fades away. Even other pieces of evidence tend to evaporate, and therefore, if cases have to be judged decades after the date of the crime, the cases are bound to fail. The consequent result is that both the victim and society are losers, and overall conviction rates are dispiriting. It is high time that steps were taken by the administration to ensure that the constitutional assurance of expeditious justice is honoured practically."
