MUMBAI: Nearly 40 years after a teenage girl was allegedly kidnapped, a sessions court on Thursday acquitted an absconding accused in the 1985 case, in one of the rare trials conducted in absentia under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court held that the prosecution failed to prove kidnapping, failed to establish the girl’s age and could not even trace the complainant or prosecutrix to testify.Trial in absentia ends in acquittal 4 decades later in 1985 kidnapping caseAdditional Sessions Judge Satyanarayan R. Navander acquitted Nawab Kajim Hussen, who had been charged with kidnapping a 14-year-old girl in 1985 along with co-accused Mohammed Hanif Mohammed Yusuf, who was acquitted in 2001.According to the prosecution, the girl’s father first lodged a missing complaint at Agripada police station on March 14, 1985. Days later, he accused the two men of kidnapping his daughter, following which an FIR was registered under the Indian Penal Code.Police later traced the girl and the accused to an abandoned room in Gaikwad Nagar in Malwani, Malad, and arrested them. However, Hussen later absconded, forcing the court to split the trial. Yusuf was tried separately and acquitted by a sessions court in August 2001.BNSS trial in absentiaThe case against Hussen remained dormant for years before the court revived proceedings using provisions under Section 356 of the BNSS, which permit trials in absentia for proclaimed offenders evading arrest.The judge recorded that since charges had already been framed against the absconding accused earlier, “there was no legal impediment in proceeding with the trial in absence of accused no.1 (Hussen).” A legal aid advocate was accordingly appointed through the District Legal Services Authority to represent Hussen during the proceedings.Prosecution case collapsesDespite proceeding with the trial, the court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge of kidnapping. “At the outset, it may be mentioned that neither the prosecutrix nor her father, the complainant, has been examined before the Court,” the judgment noted. The court said police had filed a report stating that the witnesses “could not be traced at the given address”.Without the testimony from the prosecutrix or her father, the FIR itself could not be legally proved, the court said. The court further noted that the prosecution also failed to establish that the girl was a minor, with no birth certificate or documentary proof of age produced before the court. The judgment also referred to evidence suggesting that the girl had voluntarily accompanied the accused. Citing Supreme Court rulings, the court observed that voluntary companionship alone could not amount to kidnapping and that “something more has to be shown”, such as inducement or active participation by the accused in persuading her to leave home.“Since the prosecution witness, the Investigating Officer himself, has stated about the love affair, it appears that the prosecutrix had voluntarily joined the accused,” the court observed. The court further held that forensic evidence regarding blood stains on seized articles was insufficient to prove rape in the absence of the prosecutrix’s testimony.