The 65-year-old man accused in the rape and murder of a three-year-old girl at a village in Pune district, triggering strong protests, has a prior record of molestation — police are tracing details of the first case from 1998 while records reviewed by The Indian Express show that a judge pointed to tardy investigation in the second case from 2015 before acquitting the man.

In the latest case, involving the three-year-old, a Pune court remanded the accused to police custody till May 7. While seeking custody, police said they wanted to probe further whether he had committed more such offences in the past.

Speaking to reporters about the acquittal in the 2015 case, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said, “The previous offences against the accused would be checked. It will be seen whether there were any lapses…”

Court records in the 2015 case show that the accused was charged with allegedly molesting a 17-year-old relative under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 354 and 506, and sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. According to the order of a special court dated May 3, 2019, the judge expressed surprise over police not taking “any efforts” to collect documents required to conclusively prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the offence. The court also observed “inconsistencies” in the victim’s version about the “point of incident”.

Court records show that on July 24, 2015, the accused, who resided nearby, allegedly called the victim to his house on the pretext of helping him switch on the TV. Once she arrived, he allegedly closed the door, caught her by the stomach and threatened her with a sickle, records show.

The accused allegedly then forced the victim to lie on the floor and sexually assaulted her, the records show. She pushed him away and escaped, which was purportedly witnessed by her aunt, who was standing outside, according to records. The victim ran towards her family members, who were working in a field, and narrated the incident to them, the records show.

An FIR was lodged against the accused at the same police station where he has now been booked again, under BNS and POCSO, for the rape and murder of the three-year-old on May 1. In the 2015 case, the accused was granted bail in October that year. The prosecution examined five witnesses during the trial, including the victim, her mother, her aunt, a local panchayat member and the investigating officer. The court, however, observed “inconsistencies” in the nature and sequence of the molestation incident as described in the FIR and the victim’s deposition. The court also found inconsistencies in the depositions of the victim’s mother and aunt “about happening and sequence of the incident”.

The prosecution, the court stated, “tried to prove the case through the chain of circumstance i.e. seizure of Sickle from the spot”. But the court observed that a sickle is commonly used by agriculturists and freely available in the market, and its recovery was therefore “not an incriminating material”.

On the investigation, the court stated: “Surprisingly, police have not taken any efforts to collect the valid and authenticate age proof of the victim.” The victim had submitted a copy of her school leaving certificate stating her age as “17 years and some 11 months” at the time of the incident.

In such cases, the court noted, it is necessary to prove clearly and beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor. Since no valid document was available to establish this, the offence under the POCSO Act “could not be attracted” against the accused, it said. The court also observed that no independent witnesses were examined, and that the victim’s aunt was an “interested witness”. Even as the accused pleaded not guilty, the defence submitted that the accused and the victim’s family had a land dispute, on account of which he had been falsely implicated. The defence also argued that the accused was a relative of the victim, with six daughters and a son, making it highly improbable that he would act in such a manner.

“Considering the consistent suggestions by the defence, the possibility of land disputes between family of victim and accused cannot be ruled out and thereby, possibility of false implication is also not completely ruled out,” the court said.

The court also pointed out that the prosecution could not prove the alleged incident and offences beyond reasonable doubt.

“Therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused,” it stated.