Ram Pravesh Thakur vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 01.09.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 09.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010984582025
+ CRL.A. 1669/2025 & CRL.M.A. 36549/2025
RAM PRAVESH THAKUR
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Samarth Krishan Luthra
(DHCLSC), Mr. Manoviraj Singh and
Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Mitesh Mahiya, P.S. Sagarpur.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Sections 415 read with 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the BNSS), the
sole accused in Sessions Case No. 254/2022 on the file of the
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 1 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
Additional Sessions Judge (PoCSO), New Delhi District, Patiala
House Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 22.02.2025 and
the order on sentence dated 12.07.2025, as per which, he has been
convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under
Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act) and Sections 354 and 354B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 03.04.2022, between
03:30 to 04:00 PM, the accused, the fufa (uncle) of PW1, sexually
assaulted and outraged her modesty by attempting to undress her
and exhibiting his private part to her. Hence, as per the
chargesheet/ final report, the accused is alleged to have committed
the offences punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the PoCSO
Act and Sections 354 and 509 IPC.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIS/FIR of PW1 given on
03.04.2022, crime no. 199/2022, Sagar Pur police station, i.e., Ext.
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 2 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
P1 dated 03.04.2022 alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 10 and 12 of the PoCSO Act and
Section 354 IPC was registered by Assistant Sub-Inspector,
[Charge Witness no.6 (CW6)]. PW4, Sub-Inspector, Sagar Pur
police station conducted investigation into the crime and on
completion of the same, filed the chargesheet/final report alleging
the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 10 and
12 of the PoCSO Act and Sections 354 IPC.
4. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
the copies of all the prosecution records were furnished to him, as
contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.). After hearing both sides, the trial
court, vide order dated 27.09.2022, framed a Charge under
Sections 354, 354B, 509 IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the PoCSO
Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty.
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 3 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were
examined and Exts. PW1/A-C, PW2/A-D, PW4/A, PW5/A-D, and
Ext. P1-P7 were marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. According to the accused, the parents of
PW1 had taken a loan of ₹50,000/- from him in the presence of his
brother, namely, DW1. PW2, the mother of PW1, is the sister-in-
law of his brother. Due to the said family relationship, on
18.01.2020, the accused agreed to advance an amount of ₹50,000/-
to PW2. The said amount was given in cash to PW2, as she
urgently required the same, which she undertook to return without
delay. About a month before the date of the alleged incident, he
had started demanding repayment of the loan from PW2. He came
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 4 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
to Delhi for the purpose of recovering the loan amount from PW2,
for which he was staying with PW1’s family. However, PW2 did
not repay the amount and repeatedly kept seeking time. He was
scheduled to return home on 01.04.2022, but he “ skipped his train ”
and returned to the house of PW1 to stay there. 03.04.2022 was a
Sunday and all the family members of PW1 were present in the
house. No such incident as alleged had taken place. He demanded
repayment of the loan amount from PW2 as he wanted to return
home, whereupon a quarrel took place between them. Later, PW2
called the police raising false allegations against him.
7. After questioning the accused under Section 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance
of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings,
unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 5 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K.
v. State of Kerala, 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888: 2009 (3) KHC
89 ). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section
232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.
8. On behalf of the accused, DW1 was examined. No
documentary evidence was produced by the accused.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court
vide the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2025, held the accused
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 10, 12 of the
PoCSO Act and Sections 354 and 354B IPC. Vide order on
sentence dated 12.07.2025, the accused has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years along with
fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable
under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act and to simple imprisonment
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 6 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
for a period of 2 years along with fine of ₹3,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months
for the offence punishable under Section12 of the PoCSO Act. In
light of Section 42 of the PoCSO Act, no separate sentence has
been awarded by the trial court for the offences punishable under
Sections 354 and 354B IPC. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred
this appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused submitted that the alleged incident occurred on a
Sunday and, as admitted by PW3, the brother of PW1, the entire
family was present at home on that day. It was therefore contended
that, in such circumstances when the family members would
ordinarily be expected to remain at home rather than go out for
their usual work, it was highly improbable that PW1 would have
been left alone at the relevant time. It was further submitted that
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 7 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
the trial court failed to properly appreciate this material
circumstance while assessing the prosecution version.
10.1. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted
that the trial court has failed to consider that the accused has been
falsely implicated as he insisted on repayment of the loan amount
from PW2. Referring to the statement given under Section 313
CrPC by the accused, it was submitted that the accused had not
accidentally missed his train on 01.04.2022, but he had
deliberately chosen not to board it in order to remain at PW1’s
home till the amount was repaid.
11. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference by this court.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 8 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
13. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment
warranting an interference by this Court.
14. I shall briefly refer to the evidence on record relied on
by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext. PW1/A FIS/FIR
given on 03.04.2022 by PW1, the prosecutrix, in Hindi, translated
reads thus:- “…My father does cleaning work at Army Public
School, Dhaula Kuan and my mother is a housewife. We are five
siblings. Today on 03.04.2022, my father had gone for duty and my
mother had gone to attend Kirtan in our neighborhood and my
brothers also were not at home. My fufa (paternal uncle) whose
name is Ram Pravesh Thakur (the accused) , was staying at our
house for 7 to 8 days. Today i.e. on 03.04.22 at around 3:30 -4:00
p.m., my fufa, namely, Ram Pravesh (the accused) approached me,
at which time, nobody else was present at home. My fufa grabbed
my shoulder with wrong intention and said - “beta, nothing will
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 9 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
happen to you”. Then, he opened the zip of his pants and took out
his penis. I asked fufa as to what he was doing at which time my
brother, namely, S came in. I told everything to my brother.
Thereafter, all my family members came to know about the
incident. When my parents questioned my fufa, he admitted his
mistake and said that he may be permitted to leave. Thereafter, my
family members called the Police...”
15. Ext. PW1/C 164 Statement of PW1 recorded in Hindi
on 04.04.2022 translated reads thus: “…Yesterday i.e. on
03.04.2022 at around 3:30- 4:00 p.m., I was alone at home. My
mother, father, brother, everybody had gone outside. My mother
had gone to attend kirtan whereas my father had gone for work
and brother had gone to a shop nearby. I was lying in my room. At
that time, my fufa (paternal uncle), namely, Ram Pravesh Thakur
(the accused) came and sat near me. Initially, he touched my arm.
I got up and questioned his act. Then he said that nothing would
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 10 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
happen to me and proceeded to open the zip of his pants and tried
to remove my clothes. At this time, my brother, namely, S, came
home. I told about the incident to my elder brother, father and
mother. My fufa (the accused) had been staying at our house for
the last 7 to 8 days because he had missed his train…”
16. PW1, when examined before the trial court, deposed
that on 03.04.2022, at about 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., she was at home
along with her mother (PW2) and her paternal uncle ( fufa ), the
accused. Her mother (PW2) told her that she was going to attend a
kirtan . After her mother left, she was lying on the bed while the
accused was sitting on a sofa in the same room. The accused got
up, approached her and touched her shoulder. When she
questioned his act, the accused assured her that nothing would
happen and that she can continue lying on the bed. The accused
thereafter opened the zip of his pants and took out his private part.
In the meantime, her elder brother came into the room. Seeing her
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 11 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
brother, the accused returned to the sofa. She disclosed the incident
to her elder brother. Her parents were also informed. When her
mother returned home, the former slapped the accused and called
the police. The prosecutor is seen to have sought the permission of
the Court to “ cross examine ” on the ground that certain material
facts had not been deposed by the witness. The request was
allowed by the trial court.
16.1. Upon further examination by the prosecutor, PW1
admitted that, at the time of the incident, the accused had also
attempted to remove her clothes; that when her parents questioned
the accused about the incident, the latter admitted his mistake and
requested permission to leave. According to PW1, due to lapse of
time, she had earlier omitted to mention the aforesaid facts.
17. PW1 in her cross-examination deposed that prior to the
incident, the behaviour of the accused had been normal. She
denied the suggestion that her mother did not want the accused to
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 12 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
stay at their house. PW1 admitted that on 01.04.2022, the accused
had missed his train. PW1 denied the suggestion that, when the
accused on missing his train returned to their house, her mother
quarrelled with her father or had asked her father to send the
accused away from their house at the earliest. She does not know
whether her mother had ever sought a loan from the accused. PW1
admitted that she had not raised any alarm or made any noise at the
time of the incident. PW1 denied the suggestion that she, along
with her mother and brothers, had filed a false complaint against
the accused.
17.1. PW2, mother of PW1, deposed that on 03.04.2022, she
had gone to attend kirtan at the place of one of her acquaintances
in Gandhi Market. While attending the kirtan , she received a call
from her son, who asked her to return home. She immediately
rushed to her house, where her husband, three sons, PW1 and
accused were present. The accused is related to their family as he
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 13 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
is the jeth (brother-in-law) of her nanad (sister-in-law). When she
was told about the incident, she started beating the accused,
whereupon he confessed that he had done a wrong act and sought
permission to leave. She informed the police, pursuant to which
the police reached the spot. PW2 further deposed that the date of
birth of PW1 is 06.06.2008.
17.2. PW2, in her cross examination, denied the suggestion
that she had demanded an amount of ₹50,000/- from DW1, her jija
as she was ill at that time. PW2 denied the suggestion that on
19.01.2020, at the instance of DW1, the accused had given her
₹50,000/- in cash in the presence of her father-in-law. PW2
admitted that the marriage of DW1’s daughter was on 23.02.2022
on which occasion, the latter had demanded money from them.
According to PW2, she had given ₹10,000/- in cash to DW1. PW2
denied the suggestion that she had given ₹10,000/- in cash to DW1
as she had availed a loan of ₹50,000/- from the accused at the
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 14 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
instance of DW1. PW2 further denied the suggestion that the
accused had actually come to their house seeking repayment of the
aforesaid amount. PW2 denied the suggestion that, at the time of
the incident, they were unwilling to allow the accused to stay with
them as he was pressurising them to return his money. PW2 further
denied the suggestion that they had falsely implicated the accused
as he was demanding repayment of the loan amount.
18. PW3, the brother of PW1, when examined, deposed
that on the said day, he had gone to Santoshi Mata Mandir, Hari
Nagar, along with his friends. At about 2:30 - 3:00 P.M., when he
returned home, he saw the accused and his sister (PW1), who is
younger to him, inside the house at which time, the accused had
his hand on the shoulder of his sister and the zip of his pants was
open. On seeing him, the accused became frightened and moved
away from his sister. His sister (PW1) also looked frightened. He
asked his sister as to what the accused was doing to her. Initially,
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 15 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
his sister (PW1) did not disclose anything out of fear. However,
when he scolded her, she told him that the accused was trying to
do galat kaam with her. In the meantime, their father and eldest
brother reached home. He informed them about the incident. His
brother thereafter made a call to his mother and asked her to return
home. His mother also returned home. They questioned the
accused, whereupon the latter confessed and requested them to
permit him to leave their house. His mother informed the police.
Thereafter, they went to the police station and the accused was also
taken to the police station.
18.1. PW3 in his cross-examination deposed that he could
not recall whether 03.04.2022 was a Sunday. PW3 admitted that
Sunday is a holiday for all the family members. According to
PW3, even on Sundays all of them would not be home throughout
the day. PW2 denied the suggestion that they had taken a loan of
₹50,000/- from the accused prior to the incident or that the accused
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 16 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
had come to their house to demand the aforesaid amount from
them or that they had refused to pay the said amount to the
accused. According to PW3, he had accompanied the accused to
the railway station to see him off, but the accused missed his train.
PW3 further deposed that he had told the accused that he could
board another train from another railway station, but the accused
refused to do so and told him that they should return home. PW3
denied the suggestion that they were unwilling to keep the accused
at their house and had asked him to leave their house. PW3 further
denied any quarrel taking between his parents when they came to
know that the accused had missed his train. PW3 further denied the
suggestion that they had falsely implicated the accused as they did
not want to repay the amount of ₹50,000/- taken by them from the
accused.
19. DW1, the brother of the accused, when examined,
deposed that in the year 2020, PW2 had demanded a loan from
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 17 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
him. He, in turn, requested the accused, to give the loan amount to
PW2 on his behalf. The said loan amount of ₹50,000/- was handed
over in cash to PW2 in his presence at Lohandi Village on
18.01.2020. His father-in-law, who is also the father-in-law of
PW2, was present at the time when the amount was handed over.
The brother of PW2 was also present when the loan was given.
PW2 had promised to return the loan amount as early as possible.
Before 23.02.2022, he and the accused had demanded repayment
of the money from PW2 in connection with the marriage of his
daughter. PW2 returned a sum of ₹10,000/- to him when she came
to attend the marriage of his daughter on 23.02.2022. He and the
accused had taken loans from various sources in order to provide
the aforesaid loan amount to PW2. According to DW1, since the
accused treated the former’s daughter as his own daughter, the
latter wanted the money to be returned by PW2 for the purpose of
making arrangements for the marriage of the former’s daughter.
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 18 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
DW1 further deposed that when the accused went to the house of
PW1 to demand repayment of the money, PW2 deliberately got
him falsely implicated in the present case so that he would not
demand repayment of the money.
19.1. DW1, in his cross examination, admitted that it was the
accused who was looking after the expenses of his family. DW1
denied the suggestion that he was intentionally deposing falsely in
order to save the accused, his brother, and also because it was the
latter who was looking after the expenses of his family.
20. The factum of the minority of PW1 is not in dispute.
Therefore, the main question that arises for consideration is
whether the overt acts attributed to the accused are sufficient to
constitute the offences for which he has been found guilty. A
perusal of the materials on record, particularly Ext. PW1/A
FIS/FIR; Ext. PW1/C the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, and the
testimony of PW1, establish that the accused exhibited his private
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 19 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
part to her. The version of PW1 is corroborated by the testimony
of PW3, her brother. The materials on record do not disclose any
substantial inconsistency or infirmity in the testimony of PW1 and
PW3 so as to discredit their version regarding the overt acts of the
accused. The mere fact that the incident occurred on a Sunday does
not improbabilise the case because PW3 deposed that it is not
necessary that all members remain at home all throughout the day.
It is also pertinent to note that no specific question or suggestion in
this regard was put to PW1 when she was in the box, particularly
as to the presence or availability of her family members in the
house at the relevant time. The testimony of PW1 and the other
prosecution witnesses has not been discredited in any way.
21. The defence version of dispute regarding non-payment
of the loan advanced and subsequent false implication appears
improbable. Going by the defence version, the loan was given in
the year 2020 to PW2 who had promised to repay it at the earliest.
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 20 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
Apparently, PW2 never kept her word. According to the accused,
he had demanded the amount several times but PW2 repeatedly
sought time for repayment. In such circumstances, the relationship
between the parties would not have been that pleasant. If that be
so, it would have been highly improbable for the accused to
continue staying in the house of PW2. Further, the accused
admitted that on 01.04.2022, he was to travel by train back home.
In fact, he went to the railway station also, but he deliberately did
not board the train. According to the accused, he returned to
PW1’s home with the intention of staying there till the debt was
repaid by PW2. If his intention in coming and staying in the house
of PW2 was to get the loan amount back, what was the necessity to
enact a drama of going to the railway station and pretending to
catch a train back home? He could have continued staying in the
house until the loan amount was repaid. It appears that he had
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 21 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
other intentions of deliberately missing the train and returning to
the house of PW1.
22. Further, from the line of cross-examination of PW1,
PW2 and PW3, it appears that the defence has also a case that
though PW2 was not agreeable to the stay of the accused in their
house, the father was in favour of the same and that because of
this, a quarrel had taken place between the parents of PW1. If that
be so, the father of PW1 would not have joined PW2 and family to
falsely implicate the accused.
23. The act of the accused approaching PW1 while she was
lying on the bed, placing his hand on her shoulder and then
unzipping his pants and exhibiting himself to her shows that his
intention was certainly sexual. The act of the accused comes under
Section 7 of the PoCSO Act, that is, “an act with sexual intent
which includes physical contact without penetration”. It also
comes under clause (i) of Section 11, that is exhibiting a part of the
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 22 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
body with the intention that the part of the body is seen by the
prosecutrix. His act of undressing himself and attempting to
undress PW1 was certainly with the knowledge that it would
outrage her modesty and attract the ingredients of Sections 354 and
354B IPC.
24. I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for
an interference by this Court.
25. The appeal, sans merit, is dismissed.
26. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2026
p’ma/rs/kd
CRL.A. 1669/2025 Page 23 of 23
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13