Raj Kumar Rai @ Raju Kumar Ray vs State

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 13.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on:15.05.2026
+ CRL.A. 1201/2019
RAJ KUMAR RAI @ RAJU KUMAR RAY .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ram Ekbal Roy with Mr. Aman
Nihal and Mr. Sunil Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Jyoti, P.S. Hari Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the sole accused in Sessions
Case No. 209/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge
(PoCSO), West, Tiz Hazari Courts, Delhi, assails the judgement
dated 08.07.2019 and order on sentence dated 10.07.2019, as per
which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

punishable under Sections 376, 377 and 506 (Part I) 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, the accused, the music
teacher of PW1, repeatedly committed aggravated penetrative
sexual assault on her at her residence. He is also alleged to have
threatened to beat her if she disclosed the incident to her mother.
Hence as per the chargesheet/ final report, the accused alleged to
have committed the offences punishable under Section 376 and
506 IPC and Section 6 PoCSO Act.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS/FIR of PW2, given on
28.07.2016, Crime no. 520/2016, Hari Nagar Police Station, i.e.,
Ext. PA-2 FIR was registered by Ramesh, Head Constable(HC).
PW10Woman Sub Inspector (WSI) conducted investigation into
the crime and on completion of the same, filed the
chargesheet/final report alleging commission of the offences
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

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 18.11.2016, framed a Charge under
Sections 376, 377, 506 IPC and Sections 6 and 10 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 10 were examined
and Ext. PW 2/A-C, Ext. PW 4/A-B, Ext. PW 5/A-C, Ext. PW
7/A-D, Ext. PW 9/A, Ext. PW 10/A-H, Ext. PA-01, Ext. PA-02
(Colly), Ext. PA-03, Mark 'X', and Mark 'Y' 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
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. The accused submitted that despite
having a close relationship with PW1’s entire family, including her
nana-nani and dada-dadi, he has been falsely implicated merely
because he had demanded outstanding tuition fees from her
parents. There were disputes between him and the parents of PW1,
due to which they had altercations 3 to 4 times, including a minor
one on the day of the incident.
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. 1201/2019 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

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 08.07.2019 held the accused guilty of
the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377 and 506 (Part-I)
IPC and Section 6 PoCSO Act. Vide order on sentence dated
10.07.2019, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 20 years and to fine of ₹1,00,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months
for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC; and to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to fine of
₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

under Section 377 IPC; and to rigorous imprisonment for a period
of 2 yearsfor the offence punishable under Section 506 (Part-I)
IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this appeal.
10. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant/accused confined his
submissions to the quantum of sentence and contended that, out of
the total sentence of 20 years imposed, the accused has already
undergone about 12 years of imprisonment including remission. It
was therefore urged that the sentence be reduced to the period
already undergone.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity
warranting interference by this court as the trial court has duly
considered each and every ground raised in the present appeal and,
upon an overall appreciation of the materials on record,
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

adjudicated the matter on merits.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
13. In the light of the submissions made, the only question
that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding the quantum
of sentence to be awarded.
14. The trial court has awarded a sentence of 20 years for the
offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i) IPC. The exact date
of incident has not been specified, but the allegation is that the
assaults took place before 29.07.2016. The year of incident is
2016. Section 376(2) IPC, prior to the amendment in the year
2018, prescribed punishment for a term not less than ten years,
which could extend to imprisonment for life. In the light of the
dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
(2024) 2 SCC 323 , the trial court could not have imposed a
sentence of 20 years, though the High Court and the Apex Court
are empowered to do so. The trial court could have imposed the
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

minimum sentence of 10 years or life imprisonment and if it was
for a term, for a period not exceeding 14 years. In the case on
hand, the trial court has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for
twenty years, which it could not have done. Hence, the sentence
imposed by the trial court needs to be modified.
15. The accused, being the music teacher of PW1, was in a
position of trust and authority. He repeatedly committed
aggravated penetrative sexual assault and carnal intercourse
against the order of nature upon PW1, a minor aged about 11
years, behind closed doors at her residence, and threatened to beat
her if she disclosed the assault to anyone. Therefore, the minimum
sentence of 10 years prescribed under Section 376(2) IPC would
not suffice. Accordingly, the sentence is modified to a period of 14
years of rigorous imprisonment.
16. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction
of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 377
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

and 506(II) IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act is confirmed.
However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC
is modified to 14 years.
17. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
MAY 15, 2026
Mj/rs
CRL.A. 1201/2019 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51