TVF Founder Arunabh Kumar Acquitted In Sexual Harassment Case
The former CEO of the popular YouTube Channel, The Viral Fever has been acquitted in the 2017 sexual harassment case filed against him.
FIR against Kumar by former employee
In brief, it was the case of the prosecution that, in the 1st week of June 2014, the informant along with her friends were sitting in front of her office. While talking on mobile she went to the ground which is situated in her office. At that time accused Arunabh Kumar called her. It was alleged that he kept her hand on her shoulder and pulled her and passing his hand on her back and breast and outraged her modesty and told 'Tum Mere Sath Mere Ghar Main Chalo Main Tumhe Aam Khilata Hoon.' In 2017, she came to know about bad behaviour with another lady by the accused Arunabh Kumar and the crime was registered at MIDC police station.
A case was registered against Kumar under Indian Penal Code Sections 354 A (causing sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).
Delay in filing FIR and interest witnesses
The court found discrepancies and contradictions in the case. It was also not clear why the informant took three years to communicate Kumar's alleged bad behaviour to the police.
"There is an unreasonable and unexplained delay in filing F.I.R. 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 the reason of business between the accused and informant, the court's order said."
Suspecting professional rivalry, the court said that all witnesses are interest witnesses. They are involved in the same industry where the accused is also doing business. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
What does the law say on delay in filing FIR
The law is silent on the question of delay in filing FIR but an FIR should be filed as soon as possible after the alleged incident takes place. Narrating the minute details of an alleged incident requires reliance on human memory, therefore an FIR must be filed at the earliest to give an accurate account of the incident. Time and again, judicial precedents have made it clear that an FIR must be filed as early as possible. A delay in filing the same is generally seen as an afterthought and must be avoided.
An impediment in filing the FIR on part of the informant as in this case must be substantiated with reasonable and fair explaination.
It is the earliest and first information of a cognizable offense recorded by a police station officer, the Supreme court said in the matter of T. T. Antony vs. State.
In Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. Vs. State Rep. By Public Prosecutor, the Apex Court held that: “If justifiably explained, delay in the lodging of FIR will not be fatal. An unnecessary delay in filing a First Information Report is often looked at with some doubt, and should be avoided as far as possible.”
Additional Public Prosecutor Khade appeared for State.
Advocate Rohini Wagh appeared for Kumar.
