Naveen vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on:20.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on:25.05.2026

+ CRL.A. 877/2016
NAVEEN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Hari Shanker, Advocate with Mr.
Pankaj Sharma, Advocate

Versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
Ms. Nishtha Jain, Advocate (Amicus
Curiae) for Victim

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the sole accused in
SC No. 63/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I,
East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 1 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

dated 06.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 09.08.2016 as per
which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the
IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences, 2012 (the PoCSO Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 12.09.2013 at about
03.30 p.m., the accused kidnapped PW4, a minor aged about 16
years, from her residence, that is, House No. 7/396, Trilok Puri,
Delhi and took her to a village in Bihar. It is further alleged that
between 12.09.2013 and 22.09.2013, the accused raped PW4.
Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused was
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections
363, 366, 366A, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act.
3. On the basis of Ext.PW2/A FIS/FIR of PW2, given on
13.09.2013, Crime no. 545/2013, Kalyanpuri Police Station, that
is, Ext.PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1, Head Constable. PW7,

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 2 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case.
On completion of the investigation into the crime, the charge-
sheet/final report was filed alleging the 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 25.04.2014, framed a Charge under
Section 376, 363 IPC and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act, which was
read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 10 were
examined, and Exts. PW1/A-B, PW2/A-B, PW3/A-D, PW4/A,
PW5/A-C, PW6/A-C, PW9/A-B, PA, P2, PA-1, PA-3 and Mark X
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

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 3 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
of the prosecution. He denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that he is deeply
in love with PW4. However, PW2, the father of PW4, was
annoyed with their relationship. Therefore, PW2 in collusion with
the police officials, lodged a false case against him. He married
PW4 on 23.05.2026 as per Hindu rites and customs.
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
in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K.
vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 4 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

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 on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgement dated 06.08.2016, found the accused
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and
Section 4 of the PoCSO. Vide order on sentence dated 09.08.2016,
the accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years, fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to simple imprisonment of one month. Aggrieved, the
accused has preferred this appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that the impugned judgment suffers from grave
misappreciation of evidence, inasmuch as the trial court failed to

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 5 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

consider the admission of PW4 that the relationship between the
parties was consensual, arising out of a love affair, and that the
FIR came to be lodged by PW2, the father of PW4, in a fit of
anger. PW4 testified that the accused was not at fault, and
whatever happened took place out of her own free will. It was
further submitted that the trial court ignored the mitigating
circumstances, including the subsequent marriage between the
appellant and PW4 during the pendency of the trial. On these
grounds, it was prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction
and order on sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.
11. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that consent of
PW4 is wholly immaterial in law, once her minority stands
established. It was submitted that the evidence on record
conclusively proves that PW4 was a child within the meaning of
the PoCSO Act on the date of occurrence, and therefore any

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 6 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

purported consent, willingness, or voluntary participation is of no
legal consequence. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
calling for an interference by this Court.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this court.
14. I make a brief reference to the oral and documentary
evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. The
law was set into motion by a missing complaint filed by PW2, the
father, recorded on 13.09.2013, marked as Ext. PW2/A FIS/FIR,
stating that on 12.09.2013 at around 03:30 p.m., his eldest
daughter (PW4), aged 16 years, left the house without informing
anyone and had not returned home since. Nothing was known
about her whereabouts. He suspects that Naveen (the accused), a
resident of Block 9, Trilokpuri, had kidnapped his daughter.

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 7 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

15. PW4, the victim, in Ext. PW4/A 164 statement,
recorded on 23.09.2013, has stated thus:- Naveen (the accused)
had given her a mobile phone. Her mother found out about it and
started beating her. Her younger sister also beat her. Her mother
called her father and told him to throw her out of the house and
beat her. Her father had beaten her earlier also. Her father told her
to call Naveen and tell him that she had been thrown out of the
house. Her father asked her to leave home and go with Naveen and
that he would not file any case against them. So, she called Naveen
in the presence of her father and asked the former to meet her.
Naveen met her at Block No. 15. She informed Naveen that her
father had thrown her out of the house. Naveen responded by
saying that her parents might have said it out of anger and advised
her to return home. She refused to go back as she was scared that
her parents would beat her. She told Naveen that he could go
wherever he wanted, but she would not return home. After a while,

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 8 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

her cousin called Naveen and enquired whether she was with him.
Out of fear, Naveen denied it. Her cousin then informed Naveen
that a case had been filed against him. She told Naveen that since a
case had already been filed, she would definitely not go back
home. On 12.09.2013, Naveen took her to a friend’s place. The
next morning, Naveen’s friend told them that his nana-nani lived
in Bihar and suggested that they go there. They then boarded a
train from Anand Vihar to Bihar. It took them two days to reach
there. Upon reaching, Naveen called his friend, who informed him
that the former’s parents were being harassed by her parents. The
friend’s nanaji refused to keep them at his house, so they stayed at
the railway station. They could not think of what to do next
because they had run out of money. They then prepared an
application and surrendered before the Deputy Inspector General
(DIG). The DIG concerned informed the Mahila Thana there, and
they were taken to the police station. They informed the police that

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 9 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

they had come from Delhi. The police officials then contacted the
Delhi police station. They remained at the police station until the
Delhi police arrived in Bihar. Her mother and father also came
along with the Delhi police. They were brought back to Delhi. It is
not Naveen’s fault. Whatever happened took place entirely of her
own free will. She does not wish to pursue any legal action against
Naveen. She wants to marry Naveen.
16. PW4, when examined before the court, deposed that
she was in a relationship with the accused. PW4 also deposed that
though the accused had advised her to return home, she refused to
return and responded thus:- “ I told accused that I want to go with
him and otherwise, I will commit suicide”. PW4 further deposed
that after they left for Bihar, they had stayed at the house of a
person known to the accused. At the said house, they established
physical relations with her consent. Thereafter, they surrendered

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 10 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

before the local police. PW4 deposed that she wanted to marry the
accused.
17. To determine the age of PW4, PW3, Principal, Govt.
Girls Sr. Sec. School, Kalyan Puri, Delhi-91, was examined. She
produced the admission record and Ext. PW3/A the admission
register. At Serial No. 3632 of the register, PW4 is shown to have
been admitted to Class VI on 02.04.2008. As per the record, the
date of birth of PW4 is 19.03.1998. PW3 also produced the file
containing Ex. PW3/B the admission form; Ex. PW3/C the School
Leaving Certificate (SLC); and Ex. PW3/D the fee receipt. The
Class X examination result of PW4, certified by her, is also
marked as Ex. PW3/E. The prosecution has satisfactorily
established the age of PW4. Therefore, on the date of the incident,
i.e., 12.03.2013, PW4 was 15 years, 5 months old and thus, a
minor.

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 11 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

18. As noticed earlier, the accused has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of
the PoCSO Act. The prosecution primarily relies on the testimony
of PW4, to which I have already referred to in detail. In her 164
statement, there is no allegation regarding the establishment of
physical relations by the accused. However, in the court, PW4
deposed that when they were in Bihar, the accused had physical
relations with her. In the 164 statement, she is categorical that
there was no fault on the part of the accused. Therefore, the case in
the box seems to be a material improvement made by PW4. The
trial court relied on the testimony of PW4 to the effect that the
appellant/accused had established physical relations with her while
in Bihar coupled with the medical evidence which showed her
hymen to be torn, to find the appellant/accused guilty of the
offences charged against him. It is true that the sole testimony of
the prosecutrix is sufficient in an offence of such nature and

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 12 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

corroboration is not required if the testimony of the victim is of
sterling quality. However, in the case on hand, as the statements
given by PW4 are not consistent, it is not possible to base the
conviction solely on the testimony of PW4. As noticed earlier, she
has no case of the accused establishing “physical relations” with
her while in Bihar. This version comes only in the box, which is
apparently an improvement of the earlier version. In such
circumstances, I find that the appellant/accused is entitled to the
benefit of doubt. Hence, I find that the trial court was not justified
in convicting the appellant/accused based on the sole
unsatisfactory testimony of PW4.
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment is set aside and the accused is acquitted under Section
235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC
and Section 4 of the PoCSO Act. The accused is set at liberty. His

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 13 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17

bail bond shall stand cancelled, and the sureties, if any, shall stand
discharged.
20. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)

MAY 25 , 2026
p’ma

CRL.A. 877/2016 Page 14 of 14

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
14:55:17