Deepu @ Deepak vs State
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 31.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 09.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC014960862017
+ CRL.A. 83/2018
DEEPU @ DEEPAK .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Azhar Qayum, Mr. Narender
Kumar, Mr. Shahruddin and Mr.
Zubair, Advocates
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
Ms. Ananya Pandey, Advocate
( Amicus Curiae) for Victim
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal under Section 374 read with Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole
accused in Sessions Case No. 128/2014 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Judge-01, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 1 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
assails the judgment dated 26.08.2017 and order on sentence dated
26.08.2017 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for
the offences punishable under Sections 342, 363, 377 and Part I of
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section
6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(the PoCSO Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 26.07.2014 at about 02:00
p.m., the accused kidnapped PW3, a minor boy aged 10 years,
from the street near his house, wrongfully confined him at Jhuggi
No. 14/139, Kalyanpuri, Delhi and committed carnal intercourse
against the order of nature. The accused criminally intimidated
PW3 by threatening to beat him if he disclosed the incident to
anyone. As per the chargesheet/ final report, the accused is alleged
to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 342,
363, 367, 377 and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act.
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 2 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
3. On the basis of Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR of PW3 given on
01.08.2014, Crime No. 682/2014, Kalyanpuri Police Station, that
is, Ext. PW1/A was registered by PW1, Head Constable. PW11,
Sub-Inspector, conducted the investigation into the crime and on
completion of the same, filed the chargesheet/final report alleging
commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned
Sections.
4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all
the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court, vide order dated 31.10.2014, framed a Charge under
Sections 342, 363, 377, Part I of Section 506 IPC and Section 4 of
the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused
to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 12 were
examined and Exts. PW1/A, PW1/B, PW1/C, PW2/A, PW3/A,
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 3 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
PW3/B, PW4/A, PW4/B, PW4/C, PW4/D, PW4/E, PW5/D1,
PW6/4, PW7/A, PW7/B, PW8/A, PW9/A, PW10/A, PW10/B,
PW10/C PW11/A and PW11/B were marked.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC. regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. He claimed that he had been falsely
implicated in the present case because he had intervened in a
quarrel that took place between one Lambu and PW3’s mother. He
denied having committed any wrong act on PW3.
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,
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 4 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted
in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K.
vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker
2888 ). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of
Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.
8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the
accused.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 26.08.2017, held the accused guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 342, 363, 377 and Part I of Section 506
IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. Vide order on sentence dated
26.08.2017, the accused has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine of ₹10,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a
period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 377
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 5 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
IPC; to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with
fine of ₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act; to rigorous imprisonment for 5
years along with fine of ₹1,000/- and in default of payment of the
fine, to simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the
offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; to rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section
342 IPC; and to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence
punishable under Part I of Section 506 IPC. The sentences have
been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the accused has
come up in appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that the age of PW3 has not been conclusively
established by the prosecution. The date of birth of PW3 recorded
in Ext. PW4/A admission register is based solely on Ext. PW4/B
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 6 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
affidavit furnished by his parents at the time of his admission in
the school. No birth certificate or any other document issued by
any Government authority or the Municipal Corporation was
produced to substantiate or corroborate the date of birth. The
school record, being founded only upon the affidavit of the
parents, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the age of PW3.
10.1. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the medical evidence does not corroborate the
prosecution case. Ext. PW9/A MLC of PW3 and Ext. PW12/A
treatment record shows that there was no history of bleeding or
difficulty in defecation and no bruise or any sign of injury on or
around the anus of PW3. It was also pointed out that the MLC
records the anal tone as normal and notes absence of tenderness on
rectal examination. Therefore, no injury was found on the medical
examination of PW3 and so the medical record does not disclose
any finding corroborating the offence. It was further submitted by
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 7 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
the learned counsel for the appellant that the anal swabs of PW3
were taken and handed over to PW12, the Investigation Officer
(IO). However, no FSL report in respect of the swab has been
placed on record.
10.2. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that the matter was reported on 01.08.2014 when PW3 is
alleged to have experienced pain in his anus, which is after about
seven days of the alleged incident, that is, on 26.07.2014. If the
incident had infact occurred in the manner stated by PW3, pain
would have manifested immediately or proximate to the date of the
incident. There is an unexplained delay of around six days in
lodging the FIR. Further, the explanation that the accused had
threatened to kill PW3 if he disclosed the incident to anyone also
seems implausible. PW3 deposed that he disclosed the incident to
his mother as soon as he experienced pain. If the threat was serious
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 8 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
to deter PW3 from disclosing the incident, it is unclear why he
would disclose it immediately upon experiencing pain.
10.3. It was also submitted that there are material
discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW3, PW7
and PW11regarding the arrest of the appellant. PW3 deposed that
the appellant was brought to the police station from a tea shop on
01.08.2014, whereas PW7 and PW11 stated that he was arrested
from Village Bhangal, Noida, on 03.08.2014. Further, the
testimony of PW2 and PW5 is only hearsay evidence.
10.4. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that the present case arose out of a quarrel
between the mother of PW3 and one Lambu, a neighbour. The
accused intervened in the quarrel and supported Lambu. Hence, he
has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had not
supported PW3’s family in the quarrel. The prosecution has failed
to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It was
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 9 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
accordingly prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and
order on sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.
Reliance has been placed on the dictum in Navin Dhaniram
Baraiye vs. The State of Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine Bom
1281, in support of the arguments.
11. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
calling for an interference by this Court. Ext. PW4/A and Ext.
PW4/B, the school admission records, are admissible in evidence
and that the age of PW3 stands proved during the trial. As regards
the absence of external injuries, it was submitted that PW3 was
medically examined about six days after the incident and,
therefore, the absence of external injuries in the MLC is not
unusual. With regard to the discrepancy concerning the arrest of
the accused, it was submitted that the testimony of PW7 who
effected the arrest of the accused, was never challenged as PW7
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 10 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
was never cross-examined. Despite the accused being given an
opportunity to recall PW7 if found necessary, the witness was
never recalled and cross-examined. Therefore, the fact of the arrest
remains unchallenged. Further, the quarrel between the mother of
PW3 and Lambu was a separate incident and had no connection
with the sexual assault on PW3 by the accused. Therefore, it was
submitted that the prosecution case stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt and that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal
is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the
appellant/accused by the trial court are sustainable or not.
14. I shall briefly refer to the oral and documentary evidence
relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext PW3/A
FIS/FIR given on 01.08.2014 by PW3 in Hindi, translated reads
th
thus:-“ I reside with my parents and study in 7 standard. On
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 11 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
26.07.2014 at around 02:00 p.m., I was going to fetch wood from
the market near my jhuggi. My parents were not at home. Deepu,
son of Ram Prakash, who works at Lala’s tea shop and lives in a
neighbouring jhuggi on rent, took me to his jhuggi and asked me to
come inside. When I entered his jhuggi, Deepu (the accused)
closed the door from inside, pulled down my pants and started
committing wrong act on me from behind ( मेरी िन र उतार कर
. When I started crying in pain, Deepu
पीछे से गलत काम करने लगा)
(the accused) put his hand on my mouth. After committing the
wrong act, he threatened me not to disclose the incident to anyone,
or he would beat me. Thereafter, I returned to my jhuggi. I did not
share it with anyone in fear. Today, when I felt pain in my anus, I
revealed it to my parents, who took me to the police station.”
15. Ext. PW3/B 164 Statement of PW3 recorded in Hindi
on 02.08.2014, translated reads thus:- “ On 26.07.2014, a boy
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 12 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
named Deepu (the accused) called me over. He (the accused)
covered my mouth and latched the door. He (the accused) then
started misbehaving with me. He (the accused) committed carnal
intercourse on me ( वो मेरी गांड मार रहा था) . I experienced severe
pain. He (the accused) threatened me that he (the accused) would
beat me up severely if I disclosed the incident to anyone. Out of
fear, I did not disclose it. Yesterday, I told about the incident to my
family members”
16. PW3 when examined deposed that the accused was his
th
neighbour. The incident occurred on the 26 at 02:00 p.m., which
was a Saturday. PW3 was unable to recall the year in which the
incident took place. When he was going to the market, the accused
called him inside the jhuggi . As soon as he entered, the accused
tied a cloth on his face and bolted the door from inside. The
accused committed carnal intercourse with him. Thereafter, the
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 13 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
accused threatened to kill him if he disclosed the incident to
anyone. Due to fear, he did not disclose the incident to his family.
After a week, he felt pain in his anus and hence told his mother.
He, along with his parents, went to the police station and gave Ext.
PW3/A statement. He was taken to the hospital for medical
examination.
16.1. PW3 in his cross-examination admitted that his parents
had a quarrel with Lambu, their neighbour. On the date of the
incident, Lambu had entered their house, and when his father
(PW2) arrived, Lambu ran away from their jhuggi . His parents had
a quarrel with Mohd. Ali (PW5), the owner of the jhuggi , in which
Lambu was staying. His mother had asked PW5 to evict Lambu
from the jhuggi , in connection with which his parents quarrelled
with Mohd. Ali (PW5) on the date of the incident. PW3 admitted
that the accused had supported Mohd. Ali (PW5) in the quarrel and
that the accused had also abused his parents. PW3 admitted that
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 14 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
they went to the police station after the quarrel. When PW3 was
asked by the trial court as to when the quarrel had taken place, he
answered that it was on the day after the date of the incident. They
had gone to the police station at about 03:00 p.m. and stayed there
for about 02 to 03 hours. The police had recorded his and his
father’s (PW2) statements. The police had let off the accused on
that day. When PW3 was asked by the Court as to how the accused
had reached the police station on the said day, answered that the
accused had been brought by the police from his place of work.
The accused was living in the same jhuggi where Lambu was
residing. The carnal intercourse was committed while he was on
the floor and the assault went on for about half an hour.
Throughout the incident, he remained on the floor. There was no
bleeding from his anus on the date of the incident. PW3 denied the
suggestion that he had been tutored by his parents to make a false
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 15 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
statement against the accused, as the latter had quarrelled with his
parents and abused his mother.
17. PW2, the father of PW3, deposed that in the evening
of 26.07.2014, when he returned home from work, his wife told
him that their son (PW3), aged about 13 years, was experiencing
pain in his anal area. He asked his son (PW3) as to what had
happened, whereupon his son (PW3) told him that Deepu (the
accused), who was working at a nearby tea shop, had called his son
while he was going to the market to collect wood. Deepu (the
accused) took his son (PW3) to a neighbour’s jhuggi and shut the
door. The accused removed his son’s nicker, pressed his mouth,
and committed carnal intercourse on him. His son (PW3) also told
him that Deepak (the accused) had threatened him that if the
former disclosed the incident to anyone, he would be beaten. All
these facts were disclosed to him by his wife about a week after
the incident, after which he, alongwith his son (PW3), went to the
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 16 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
police station and lodged the complaint. The police took his son
(PW3) to the hospital for medical examination. His son (PW3) had
not disclosed the incident for about a week as he had been
threatened not to do so.
17.1. PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that, during the
period from 26.07.2014 to 02.08.2014, his son (PW3) had never
complained of any pain. He knows Lambu, a rickshaw puller, who
was a tenant in a nearby jhuggi . He admitted that the owner of the
jhuggi evicted Lambu from the jhuggi on 01.08.2014. He also
admitted that he had suspected Lambu of committing theft in his
jhuggi and that he complained to the owner of the jhuggi , who in
turn asked Lambu to vacate the jhuggi . He admitted that the
accused and Lambu were friends. He admitted that, on 01.08.2014,
he had a quarrel with the owner of the jhuggi because he had asked
the owner to get Lambu evicted from the jhuggi , failing which he
would complain to the police. He admitted that during the said
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 17 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
quarrel, the accused had supported the jhuggi owner and had also
abused his wife. He denied the suggestion that the present
complaint had been lodged against the accused because the latter
had supported the jhuggi owner during the quarrel with him and
his wife. PW2 deposed that he and his wife were present at the
police station when the police recorded his son’s (PW3) statement
and also on the following day, when his son’s statement was
recorded by the Judge.
18. PW5, the owner of the jhuggi s, deposed that there are
two rooms in his jhuggi , one of which was occupied by him and
the other had been rented out to a rickshaw puller. The accused
used to frequently visit his jhuggi to meet the said rickshaw puller
for cigarettes, etc. During the relevant time, he had gone to his
village along with his family. When he returned, he came to know
from the neighbours that the accused had sexually assaulted PW3.
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 18 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
By that time, the rickshaw puller, who was his tenant, had already
vacated the jhuggi .
18.1. PW5, in his cross-examination, admitted that he did not
have any document relating to ownership of the jhuggi . However,
he has a ration card and Ext. PW5/D1 voter ID card mentioning
the address of the said jhuggi .
19. On the question of age of PW3, the prosecution relies
upon the testimony of PW4, the Principal of EDMC Primary
Model School, Khuchirpur, Second Shift, Delhi, who produced
Ext. PW4/A admission and withdrawal register of PW3 along with
Ext. PW4/B affidavit of the parents of PW3 regarding his age
submitted at the time of admission; Ext. PW4/C photocopy of
admission form; Ext. PW4/D school leaving certificate; and Ext.
PW4/E certificate issued to PW3 by the then Principal, Jagat Singh
Tebatia. PW4 identified the signature of the then Principal, Jagat
Singh Tebatia, having served contemporaneously with him. The
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 19 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
said testimony and record reveal the date of birth of PW3 as
11.02.2003. As per the record, PW3 had taken admission in Class
I on 29.08.2008 and left the school after Class VI on 25.08.2013.
19.1. PW4, in her cross-examination, deposed that no
document other than Ext. PW4/B the affidavit had been submitted
by the parents at the time of admission. She denied the suggestion
that the record produced by her was not based on any document
issued or submitted to any Government authority, or that the date
of birth of the child had been wrongly recorded in the school
records without any basis.
20. No materials have been brought on record to show that
Ext. PW4/B affidavit is a fabricated one or that the date of birth
mentioned therein is incorrect. Further, neither PW4 nor PW2
were cross-examined with regard to the genuineness or correctness
of the affidavit or the date of birth recorded. Thus, the evidence
regarding the date of birth remained substantially unchallenged.
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 20 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
The records were maintained in the ordinary course of official
business, and there is nothing on record to suggest that they were
fabricated or incorrectly prepared. Accordingly, there is no reason
to disbelieve the authenticity or correctness of the said records.
Moreover, on 10.07.2017, the prosecution moved an application
under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking amendment of the court Charge
to include Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. On 02.08.2017, the learned
counsel appearing for the accused stated that he had no objection
to the application, pursuant to which the Charge was amended.
Although this circumstance by itself cannot be treated as proof of
the age of PW3, it shows that the amended charge was not
objected to by the accused before the trial court. The school
records consistently record the date of birth of PW3 as
11.02.2003.On the date of the incident, i.e., 26.07.2014, PW3 was
approximately 11 years and 5 months old. In the absence of any
evidence creating a reasonable doubt regarding the correctness of
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 21 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
the recorded date of birth, I find that the prosecution has
established that PW3 was below 12 years of age on the date of the
incident.
21. The primary question that arises for consideration is
whether the version of PW3 regarding the commission of the
offences by the accused has remained substantially consistent
throughout and is free from material contradictions or
improvements so as to inspire confidence. In Ext. PW3/A FIS/FIR,
the case is that he did not reveal the incident to anybody as he was
threatened by the accused with dire consequences if he revealed
the same. But on 01.08.2014 when he felt pain in his anus, he
disclosed the incident to his parents ( आज जब मुझे ट ी करने वाले
रा े पर दद होने लगा तो म ने अपनी म ी और पापा को यह बात
बतलाई ) . In the 164 statement, PW3 has no such case. On the other
hand, his version is that during the course of assault, he had
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 22 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
experienced severe pain ( मुझे ब त दद आ) . The accused
threatened him that the former would beat him up severely if he
disclosed the incident. He was frightened and hence did not
disclose the incident to anyone ( म ने डर के मारे िकसी को नहीं बताया
था) . Thereafter, yesterday I told my parents ( िफर कल मैने अपने घर
. Therefore, there is no case of pain in his anus,
वाले को बताया)
which led to the disclosure.
22. In the box, the case is that after a week of the incident,
he felt pain in his anus and hence disclosed the incident to his
mother. According to PW3, the carnal intercourse was committed
while he was on the floor and the assault went on for about half an
hour. According to him, throughout the incident, he remained on
the floor. Immediately after the disclosure, on 01.08.2014, he was
taken to the police station where his Ext. PW3/A statement was
recorded and the FIR registered on the same at 21:35 hours. On
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 23 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
the same date at 10:45 p.m., he was medically examined. Ext.
PW9/A MLC of PW3 records no visible external injury. Ext.
PW12/A treatment note records “ no history of bleeding per rectal,
no history of difficult defecation, no bruise or injury or sign of
external injury at or around the anus, normal anal tone and no
tenderness or swelling on rectal examination ”. It is true that mere
absence of any external injury cannot be a ground to disbelieve the
testimony of a child. However, in the case on hand, the case in the
FIS/FIR is that on 01.08.2014, when PW3 felt pain in the anus/anal
canal ( ), he disclosed the incident to his mother.
ट ी करने के रा े
The incident took place on 26.07.2014. The disclosure is made on
01.08.2014, which is about a week after the incident. If pain was
persisting on the said day also, some corresponding finding such as
tenderness, redness or soreness would ordinarily be expected on
medical examination. But the medical evidence does not in any
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 24 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
way support the case of carnal intercourse. On the other hand, it
raises doubts as to whether any anal penetration had taken place as
alleged by the prosecution. It is true that it was about a week after
the incident, PW3 was subjected to medical examination. But, if
PW3 is to be believed, the sexual assault carried out on the floor of
the jhuggi continued for about half an hour. He had experienced
severe pain during the course of the assault. He had pain on
01.08.2014 also. If that be so, there would certainly have been
some tenderness/soreness or discolouration in or around the anal
area. But there was no such injury seen.
23. Further, the incident is alleged to have taken place on
26.07.2014 and PW3 disclosed the incident to his mother on
01.08.2014 when he experienced pain in his anus. However, if
PW2, his father, is to be believed, on 26.07.2014, when he
returned home from work, his wife told him that their son was
experiencing pain in his anal area. When he enquired with his son,
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 25 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
the latter disclosed the incident to him. PW2 thereafter deposed
that the incident was disclosed to him by his wife about a week
after the incident, after which he and PW3 went to the police
station and lodged the complaint. These two versions cannot go
together. There has been no re-examination of PW2 on the point
that he was informed of the incident on 26.07.2014 when he
returned home from work. No clarification was ever sought. If
PW2 came to know of the incident on 26.07.2014 itself, why was
it not reported immediately? Why did they have to wait till
01.08.2014? No answers are forthcoming from the materials on
record.
24. Further, PW3 admitted that on the date of the incident, a
quarrel had taken place between his mother and one of his
neighbours in which quarrel, the accused had intervened. The
relevant portion of her testimony reads thus:-
“… Once my parents had a quarrel with Lambu. Vol. Lambu had
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 26 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
entered inside our house same day when this incident happened with
me, when my father came he run away from there after leaving his
jhuggi. My parents also had a quarrel with Mohd. Ali. Vol. My mother
had asked Mohd. Ali to evict Lambu from the jhuggi and due to this my
parents had quarreled with Mohd. Ali same day when this incident took
place. It is correct that accused Deepu had supported Mohd. Ali in
quarrel with my parents and had abused my parents. It is correct that
after this quarrel we had gone to PS.
Court Question : When this quarrel had taken place?
Ans. Next day to this incident… ”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. The possibility of Ext. PW3/A FIS being lodged in the
backdrop of the quarrel cannot be completely ruled out. This is
especially so in the absence of any medical evidence supporting
the prosecution case, making the case doubtful.
26. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that although the rectal swab of PW3 was taken, it was
never sent to the FSL and no FSL report was produced. PW11, the
Investigating Officer, when examined before the trial court, was
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 27 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
silent on this aspect. There is no material on record to show that
the said sample had been sent to the FSL or examined. The
prosecution has also not offered any explanation for the non-
production of the FSL report.
27. There is yet another aspect which raises further doubts
regarding the prosecution case. PW3, in his examination-in-chief,
deposed that on 01.08.2014, the accused had also been brought to
the police station. But the police had “ let off ” the accused on the
said day. On being questioned by the trial court as to how the
accused had come to the police station, PW3 answered that the
former had been brought from the place of his work to the station
by the police. This version is materially different from the
testimony of PW7, who deposed that, in the intervening night of
02.08.2014 and 03.08.2014, he, along with PW11, the IO, went to
Village Bhangal, Sector-42, Noida on receiving secret information
and had arrested the accused from Bhangal Village. PW7 was
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 28 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
never cross-examined by the accused. Therefore, the version of
PW7, a loyal prosecution witness, regarding arrest stands
unchallenged. No clarification or re-examination of PW3 was done
regarding his testimony that the police had let off the accused on
01.08.2014. Neither PW3 nor his family has a case that the police
deliberately did it to help the accused. It is true that illegalities
committed during the course of investigation will not always enure
the benefit of the accused. But, in the case on hand, this one more
factor in addition to the earlier aspects hereinabove referred to
doubt the case.
28. In view of the unsatisfactory materials on record,
doubts arise in the mind of the Court as to whether the accused had
infact committed the offences charged against him. Hence, I find
that the prosecution has failed to establish that the
appellant/accused has committed the offences with which he has
been charged beyond reasonable doubt, and so the benefit of such
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 29 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13
doubt must necessarily enure to the accused. Hence, the conviction
and sentencing of the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 342, 363, 377 and Part I of Section 506 IPC and Section 6
of the PoCSO Act is found unsustainable and so liable to be
interfered with.
29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is
acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable
under Sections 342, 363, 377, Part I of Section 506 IPC and
Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. The appellant shall be set at liberty
and his bail bond shall stand cancelled.
30. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2026
p’ma
CRL.A. 83/2018 Page 30 of 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:09.09.2026
15:03:13