Delay in filing FIR: TVF founder Arunabh Kumar cleared of harassment charge

The Andheri metropolitan magistrate said in September that while there was “unreasonable and unexplained” delay in filing of the FIR, all the witnesses were from the same industry as the accused and the complainant, thereby making them “interested witnesses”.

The woman had said that she filed a complaint three years after the incident as she came across other women making similar allegations on social media.

Kumar was booked in two cases of sexual harassment in 2017. While he was acquitted in the Versova police station case in September, the first complaint filed by MIDC police is still pending trial.

“There is no concrete evidence produced by the prosecution. There are material discrepancies and contradictions. Even there is unreasonable and unexplained delay in filing FIR, which raised the clouds on the case of the prosecution. Even it can be said that the said complaint is filed out of grudge or rivalry on reason of business between accused and informant,” the court said.

The woman had said in her complaint that in 2014, Kumar’s office was close to her workplace. In the first week of June 2014, when she was sitting at a playground near the office, he approached her. She had alleged that he said something outraging her modesty and touched her on the back. She had claimed that she was shocked and immediately left. She then informed her friends and later went to Kumar’s office with a friend but he was not available. The complainant had said that she then ignored the incident.

In March 2017, the woman claimed she read an article about sexual harassment allegations against Kumar and read accounts of “eight-nine women” making similar allegations. The woman said she also posted about her experience and filed a police complaint.

The defence argued that a false case was filed against Kumar to extort from him. It claimed that the woman neither shouted or slapped the accused during the incident nor went to the police. The defence lawyer said that the woman had not submitted any screenshots of online posts allegedly made by the other women.

Among the witnesses examined were two of the complainant’s colleagues, who had seen her with Kumar during the incident and to whom she had spoken about it. The court said there were contradictions in the statement of one of the witnesses and since he was now married to the complainant, he was an interested witness.

It added that the police had neither shown any documentary proof to prove that Kumar’s office was in the area nor recorded the statements of any independent witnesses. It said that it had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.