Gaps in prosecution story, discrepancy in complainant’s statements: Delhi HC acquits Sonu Punjaban, co-accused in 2014 trafficking case
Both Arora and Bedwal have been in jail for nearly seven years. The two accused had pointed out gaps in the probe where other accused suspected to be involved in the chain of events of the alleged trafficking were neither identified nor arrested.
“This Court is of the view that such conduct casts a serious shadow on the reliability of PW1 and disentitles her from being treated as a witness of sterling quality,” the court ruled.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday acquitted alleged sex trafficker Geeta Arora alias Sonu Punjaban and a co-accused convicted for trafficking and prostitution of a 12-year old girl in July 2020 by a trial court in the city. The HC, while delivering the judgement, pointed out inconsistent statements of the complainant during the course of the trial and gaps in the prosecution story.
Arora and another co-accused, Sandeep Bedwal, were sentenced to 24 years and 20 years of imprisonment, respectively, on July 16, 2020, by the trial court on the basis of an FIR that was filed in 2014 under provisions of the IPC and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.
Both Arora and Bedwal have been in jail for nearly seven years. The two accused had pointed out gaps in the probe where other accused suspected to be involved in the chain of events of the alleged trafficking were neither identified nor arrested.
“There are several gaps in the prosecution story for which the materials on record do not give any answers. In these circumstances, it can only be held that the materials on record are insufficient to hold Arora and Bedwal guilty,” the High Court said.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha of the HC observed, “…In the case on hand, the failure of the investigating agency to trace these crucial links in the prosecution story weakens the case against the appellants.”
The High Court also flagged a procedural flaw in the way the trial court had permitted the prosecution to cross-examine the complainant, who was a prosecution witness. “..It is seen that several answers favourable to the prosecution were obtained by putting leading questions…the statute does not contemplate a situation where a party may ‘cross-examine’ its own witness,” Justice Sudha observed.
Justice Sudha also noted the changing statements of the complainant. These included discrepancies over the year of the incident. She said that the incident took place in 2006, according to the FIR; but then said that the incident took place in 2009 in her deposition before the trial court.
Story continues below this ad
“In the facts and circumstances of this case, the discrepancy regarding the year of incident is not a minor inconsistency but relates to the very genesis of the prosecution case..,” the High Court noted.
Noting that the complainant’s statements “contain several material improvements which were not part of her earlier statements”, the High Court underlined: “These improvements are not minor embellishments but introduce entirely new facets to the prosecution story.”
Observing that the complainant, “at different points of time, made allegations of a similar nature against different individuals, each time asserting that she was lured, intoxicated and sexually exploited,” the court cast a “serious doubt on the consistency and reliability of her version.”
“This Court is of the view that such conduct casts a serious shadow on the reliability of PW1 and disentitles her from being treated as a witness of sterling quality,” the court ruled.
Story continues below this ad
In September 2024, the High Court had refused to suspend their sentences pending a final decision on their criminal appeals, which now stand disposed of.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
