"Incomplete and inconclusive statement made before the court has no great significance. It becomes evidence stricto sensu (in strict sense) only when it is followed by cross- examination. The action of the court, to that extent, was little bit premature and hasty one," Additional Sessions Judge Manoj Jain said.
The court was hearing a revision petition filed by two accused Harbans Singh and Dushyant Singh against the magistrate court order of framing of molestation charges against them.
"It is quite possible that the result might eventually be the same even after cross-examination but reliance on incomplete evidence was unwarranted and uncalled for," the judge said.
Setting aside the magisterial court order of framing of molestation charges against the two accused, the court said, "The trial court should have, therefore, waited for the deposition to be completed and thereafter could have decided the application or even could have taken up the matter suo moto if the amendment in charge was actually warranted."
The judge also said that if the trial court feels appropriate then it could avail the new facility of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Complex of Saket Court for recording and cross examination of the victim through video linkage.
According to the prosecution, the accused were initially charged with section 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) of IPC but after the victim deposed before the magistrate that her clothes were also torn, an application was moved by the police seeking addition of molestation charges against them.