In acquitting the man of the sexual offences, Justice Chua said cases involving such offences require the complainant's evidence to be unusually convincing that the prosecution's case is proven beyond reasonable doubt solely on that basis.
He agreed with the defence - Mr Pramnath Vijayakumar and Ms Sadhana Rai from Law Society Pro Bono Services - that the stepson's evidence is not so unusually convincing as to amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt, because of the "many inconsistencies in his evidence".
"I have come to this conclusion after having considered the evidence in detail, and giving due consideration to, among other things, the lapse of time and the complainant's age at the time of the alleged offences," he said.