A Pune court has acquitted a young bus driver accused of online stalking and sexual harassment of a 13-year-old student. The judge found no sexual chat, no unwanted contact, and noted that even the girl had willingly initiated the Instagram conversation.
MAHARASHTRA: A special POCSO court in Pune has given a clean acquittal to a 19-year-old school bus driver, Raju Shrirang Jagde, who was accused of stalking a minor girl online and sexually harassing her.
The judgment was delivered on 18 November 2025 by Additional Sessions Judge Aniruddha Subhash Gandhi.
The case was registered as Special Sessions Case No. 1308/2024, and the charges were filed under Indian Justice Code (IJC) Section 78(2) (stalking) and POCSO Act Section 12 (sexual harassment).
The girl’s mother had filed a complaint on 24 August 2024, claiming she saw Instagram chat between her 13-year-old daughter and the accused. She said that when she opened her mobile phone and checked Instagram, she found written chats with “राजू जागडे” (Raju Jagde).
The complaint said the parents went to the school the next morning and confronted the boy, after which someone called the police.
But the case collapsed inside the court because the witnesses themselves gave statements that did not support the prosecution’s claims. The mother admitted during cross-examination that:
- “सदरच्या लिखीत संभाषणामध्ये कोणताही आक्षेपार्ह मजकूर नव्हता”
(“There was no objectionable content in the written conversation.”) - “काेणतीही तक्रार करण्याकरीता ते शाळेत गेले नव्हते”
(“We had not gone to the school to file any complaint.”) - “पाेलीसांनी… तक्रार दाखल करावीच लागेल असा दबाव आणल्याने तिने तक्रार दाखल केली”
(“Police pressured her that she must file a complaint, so she filed it.”)
The court noted that the girl herself admitted:
- She had sent the “फ्रेन्ड रिक्वेस्ट” (friend request) to the accused first.
- The accused did not know her age.
- She was chatting “तिच्या इच्छेनें” (of her own wish).
Judge’s Observation: No Stalking, No Sexual Intent, No Objectionable Chat
The court made it absolutely clear that for the offence of stalking under IJC 78(2) to be proved, prosecution must show that the accused kept contacting the minor even after she refused or showed disinterest. But in this case, the judge found:
- “पिडीता आरोपीशी बोलण्यास अनुत्सुक आहे… अशी कोणतीही घटना घडलेली नाही”
(“There is no incident where the victim was uninterested or refused to talk, yet the accused kept trying to contact her.”) - “उलटपक्षी पिडीताच आरोपीशी संपर्क वाढवू इच्छीत होती”
(“On the contrary, the victim herself wanted to increase contact with the accused.”)
Regarding the POCSO charge (sexual harassment under Section 12), the court emphasised that sexual intent is mandatory. But the evidence showed:
- “आरोपीबरोबर झालेल्या लिखीत संभाषणामध्ये त्याने कोणतेही अश्लील भाषा वापरल्याचे किंवा लैंगिक सुखाची मागणी केल्याचे दोघीही सांगत नाही”
(“Neither the girl nor the mother said that the accused used any obscene language or made any sexual demands.”) - The police had seized the mobile phone, but never produced the Instagram chat in court.
“सदरचा लिखीत संभाषणाची प्रत पटलावर दाखल केली नाही”
(“The written chat was not placed on record.”)
Judge’s Final Conclusion
The judge held that the prosecution failed to prove any of the ingredients required for either offence:
- “आरोपी विरुद्ध नमूद केलेल्या गुन्ह्याचे कोणत्याही आवश्यक बाबी… अभियोग पक्ष सिद्ध करू शकलेले नाही”
(“Prosecution has not been able to prove any essential ingredients of the alleged offences.”)
Thus the court ordered:
- “निर्दोष मुक्तता करण्यात येते”
(“Accused is acquitted.”) - His seized mobile phone will be returned after appeal period.
- His personal bond stands cancelled.
Final Verdict
The Pune court found that the 13-year-old girl had willingly chatted with the accused, sent him the friend request herself, and there was no sexual content, no unwanted contact, no stalking, and no bad intention.
The police also failed to present the Instagram chat in court. So the judge acquitted the young bus driver completely.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws / Sections Mentioned In The Case
| Law / Section | Full Name | Meaning in Simple Indian English | Why It Was Mentioned in This Case |
| IJC Section 78(2) | Indian Justice Code – Stalking (including online stalking) | If a man follows a woman physically or online despite her disinterest, or keeps watching her digital activity, it is “stalking.” | Prosecution claimed the accused contacted the minor on Instagram. Court said she sent friend request herself & chats were consensual. |
| POCSO Section 12 | Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Sexual Harassment | Any sexual comments, gestures, chat, messages, or attempts with sexual intent toward a minor. | Court found no sexual messages, no obscene words, no sexual intent, so charge failed. |
| BNSS Section 184 | Recording statement of witness by Court | Allows the court to record official statements of witnesses. | Victim & mother’s statements were recorded under this section. |
| BNSS Section 258(1) | Acquittal of Accused | Court can acquit if evidence does not prove charges. | Used for acquitting the accused completely. |
| BNSS Section 351 | Examination of Accused | Court records accused’s statement when needed. | Not used because no incriminating evidence came against him. |
| BNSS Section 481 | Cancellation of Bail Bond | Cancels bonds after disposal of case. | Court ordered cancellation of the accused’s personal bond. |
| POCSO Section 11 (definition referenced) | Defines “Sexual Harassment” | Defines actions that count as sexual harassment of a child. | Court used this to examine whether the accused’s messages were sexual. They were not. |
| POCSO Section 12 | Punishment for Sexual Harassment | Gives punishment for above offence. | The accused was charged but acquitted. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: State of Maharashtra vs. Raju Shrirang Jagde
- Court / Bench: Court of Shri Aniruddha Subhash Gandhi, Additional Sessions Judge, Pune (Judgment dated 18/11/2025)
Case Numbers & Registration Info:
- Special Sessions Case No.: 1308/2024
- C.R. No.: 224/2024 (Vishrambaug Police Station)
- Filing Date: 21/10/2024
- Registration Date: 07/11/2024
- Judgment Date: 18/11/2025
- Period of Trial: 1 year 28 days
Accused Details:
- Name: Raju Shrirang Jagde
- Age: 19 years
- Occupation: Bus Driver
- Address:
- Present: 1115, Ramnagar, Hingne Khurd, Manikbag, Sinhgad Road, Pune
- Permanent: Ambed, Taluka Velhe, District Pune
- Arrest Date: 24/08/2024
- Bail Date: 03/09/2024
Counsels:
- For Prosecution: Shri Anil Kumar Verma, Assistant Public Prosecutor
- For Accused: Shri D.S. Shirole (Tripaksha Litigation Partner), Defence Counsel
Prosecution Witnesses:
- PW-1 (Exh.7): Mother / Complainant
- PW-2 (Exh.12): Victim Girl
Documentary Exhibits:
- Exh.8: Birth Certificate of Minor
- Exh.9: Complaint
- Exh.10: Printed FIR
- Exh.11: Mother’s Statement under Section 184 BNSS
- Exh.12: Victim’s Statement under Section 184 BNSS
Accused Was Charged Under:
- Indian Justice Code (IJC) Section 78(2) — Stalking
- POCSO Act Section 12 — Sexual Harassment of Minor
Final Order:
- Accused Acquitted under BNSS 258(1) for charges under:
- IJC 78(2)
- POCSO 12
- Bond Cancelled
- Seized Samsung Galaxy A31 Mobile to be Returned After Appeal Period
Key Takeaways
- The court confirmed that the minor girl herself initiated the contact and even sent the friend request, yet the man was the one dragged into criminal proceedings.
- The mother admitted there was no objectionable or sexual content in the chats, proving how easily normal conversations get twisted into criminal allegations against men.
- Police pressure forced the parents to file a complaint, highlighting how men are often pushed into cases without proper inquiry or verification.
- The prosecution could not show stalking, sexual intent, or any unwanted contact, yet the young boy spent time in custody and faced trial for more than a year.
- This case exposes how quickly men get labelled as predators even when evidence shows consent, mutual communication, and no wrongdoing.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.