The Thane Sessions Court has acquitted a 33-year-old man accused of allegedly molesting a girl attending tuition classes by calling her a “Kareena Kapoor look-alike.” The acquittal was granted after the girl failed to testify against the man during court proceedings. The court, in its order, held that since the “foundational facts were not proved,” the accused was given the benefit of the doubt.
The court stated in its order:
“However, in light of the victim’s testimony, the offences levelled against the accused are not established. As per observations in the case of Navin Dhaniram Baraiye v/s. The State of Maharashtra, the foundational facts must be proved to attract the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. However, in the present case, foundational facts are not proved. Therefore, the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act cannot be drawn.”
The case dates back to 2018, when the victim was on her way to her tuition classes. The accused allegedly approached her, pulled her cheeks, and complimented her by calling her a “Kareena Kapoor look-alike.” He then asked her to accompany him. The victim’s teacher informed her father about the incident. Subsequently, the father and others apprehended the accused and handed him over to the police. A case was registered against the man at the Kalwa Police Station.
The prosecution examined two witnesses in the case. Although the victim had initially informed the police that the accused allegedly molested her and passed comments about her resemblance to Kareena Kapoor, her testimony in court did not support the prosecution’s case.
“The prosecution has not brought on record any incriminating evidence against the accused. Therefore, the evidence from the prosecution’s side is closed. The prime witness in this case, the victim, in her examination-in-chief, stated that in August 2018, while she was on her way to tuition classes, an unknown and overweight person approached her and asked which standard she was studying in. She falsely told him she was in the 7th standard. Her testimony further indicates that she does not remember what else he said to her. She also stated that she did not inform her tuition teacher and does not know anything about the incident. Additionally, she failed to identify the accused in court and did not support the prosecution’s case,” the court observed while passing its order.
