JAMMU, Oct 21: A Special Fast Track Court (POCSO Cases) in Jammu has discharged a local resident accused of purse snatching and sexual harassment of a minor girl, holding that the charges against him were groundless and that putting an individual through the agony of trial based on mere suspicion would cause a miscarriage of justice.
The order was passed by Special Judge Renu Dogra Gupta in the case titled UT of J&K vs. Ashok Khullar, arising out of FIR No. 35/2025 registered at Police Station City, Jammu.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the night of April 25, 2025, near Shubam Hotel in Hari Market, Jammu. A minor girl, staying with her maternal grandmother (nani) at a local hotel, alleged that while returning after dinner, an unknown person made inappropriate remarks, slapped both her and her grandmother, snatched her purse containing an Oppo mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs. 2,000–3,000, and fled the scene.
Police subsequently registered a case under Sections 304 (snatching), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 238 (causing disappearance of evidence/giving false information) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Following an investigation, a charge sheet was presented against Ashok Khullar, a resident of Partap Garh, Jammu.
Advocate Monish Chopra, appearing for the accused, argued that Khullar was falsely implicated and that the challan contained no material connecting him to the alleged crime. Opposing the discharge plea, the *Special Public Prosecutor* maintained that sufficient prima facie material existed to frame charges.
After scrutinizing the case diary and witness statements recorded under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court highlighted critical gaps in the prosecution’s theory:
The initial FIR was lodged against unknown persons. In her statement recorded nearly a month later under Section 183 BNSS, the victim could neither name the accused nor provide details regarding the make, color, or registration number of the two-wheeler mentioned.
Khullar’s name surfaced several months after the incident—when the grandmother mentioned him during her Section 180 BNSS statement, without explaining how she came to know his identity or vehicle details.
Despite the victim stating that she could identify the perpetrator by face, the investigating agency never conducted a Test Identification Parade. The Court noted that an unsupported claim cannot substitute for legal identification when the suspect was previously unknown.
The prosecution relied on a two-wheeler allegedly presented by the accused at the police station months later in December 2025. The Court ruled that mere subsequent possession or production of a vehicle, in the absence of connecting corroboration, fails to establish that it was used in the commission of the alleged offense.
Reiterating settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Special Judge remarked that while the Court does not marshal evidence into grain and chaff at the stage of framing charges, it is not required to act as a passive spectator:
“At the time of framing of charge, the court is not required to marshal material on record… but at the same time it is the bounden duty of the court to see that if the evidence which the prosecution proposes to produce… cannot show that accused have committed particular offence, then the charge cannot be framed. Prima facie belief cannot be extended to such a level wherein on mere allegations everyone is dragged to face the agony of trial.”
Observing that even unrebutted prosecution evidence would inevitably lead to an acquittal, the Court discharged Ashok Khullar of all charges, directed the discharge of his bail bonds, and ordered the release of any seized property to its rightful claimant.