Panchkula A sexual harassment and stalking case against a Panchkula resident has ended in acquittal on Tuesday after a local court found the prosecution evidence riddled with missing links and questioned the manner in which the police investigated the allegations.
Chief judicial magistrate court acquitted the accused observing that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accused was facing charges under Sections 354-A (sexual harassment) , 354-D (stalking), 506(criminal intimidation) and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the IPC. He was represented by advocate Deepanshu Bansal.
The case was triggered by a complaint made by the woman directly to the Haryana chief minister’s office in August 2022. She had alleged that her neighbour repeatedly harassed her, passed comments, sang vulgar songs and stalked her. She was six months pregnant at the time and said she was often alone at home as her parents were abroad and her husband frequently remained out of state for work.
However, the court found that the original complaint did not contain details of any sexually coloured remarks, specific incidents, dates, times or places. More elaborate allegations—including allegations that the accused winked, blew kisses, whistled and sang particular songs—surfaced for the first time in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), nearly three months later. The court termed these additions an “improvement” and found the allegations suspicious.
{{/usCountry}}However, the court found that the original complaint did not contain details of any sexually coloured remarks, specific incidents, dates, times or places. More elaborate allegations—including allegations that the accused winked, blew kisses, whistled and sang particular songs—surfaced for the first time in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), nearly three months later. The court termed these additions an “improvement” and found the allegations suspicious.
{{/usCountry}}The investigating officer admitted that no independent neighbour or municipal councillor joined in the investigation.
No video or photograph supporting the allegations was found, while CCTV footage from the market and the area around the adjoining houses was not collected.
A police official, Karamjeet, who was allegedly shown a U-shaped passage in the hedge and could have shed light on the allegations, neither joined in the investigation nor examined in court. As per the complainant, the accused had made a U-shape in the hedge to stare at her.
The court also noted that the underlying dispute appeared to concern a tree, plants and hedge allegedly installed on government land outside the complainant’s house, with branches extending towards the accused’s premises. The accused’s defence was that the criminal case was filed as a counterblast to his objections.
The court ultimately held that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to safely record a conviction and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.