Metropolitan Magistrate Pawan Kumar let off the juvenile while noting that the complainant was the only eyewitness who could have identified the accused and proved the alleged incident.
“In the present case, the complainant was the only eyewitness who could have proved the act of unnatural sex committed by alleged person. The complainant was the only witness who could have identified the accused in the court. It is settled proposition that identification of the accused in the court is a substantive piece of evidence.
“In view of the non examination of the complainant, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is the same person who had committed the act of unnatural sex against the complainant. Since, the complainant is not examined, therefore the prosecution failed to establish the allegation against the accused,” the magistrate said.
According to the prosecution, in February 1997, the accused juvenile had allegedly committed unnatural sexual offence with the complainant at the observation home at Majnu Ka Tila in central Delhi and had also threatened to kill him if he disclosed it to anyone.
The accused juvenile was charged for the offences under sections 377 (unnatural sex) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
During the trial, police told the court that the complainant could not be examined as he was reported to be untraceable.
The accused had denied the allegations but he did not lead evidence in his defense.