Jagabandhu Jena vs State Of Nct Of Delhi

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 12.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 15.05.2026
+ CRL.A. 1251/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1865/2025
JAGABANDHU JENA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Pragya
Barsaiyan, Advocate
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
W/SI Pinki, P.S. Dabri.
Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate
(DHCLSC) with Ms. Devyani Singh,
Advocate for victim.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 415 read with Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the
sole accused in Sessions Case No. 286 of 2018 on the file of the
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 1 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (POCSO)-01, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi, assails the judgement dated 03.05.2025 and order on
sentence dated 16.05.2025, as per which he has been convicted and
sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 5(m) read with
6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(the PoCSO Act).
2. The prosecution case is that on 06.03.2018 at about
09.30 p.m. at House No. 569, Street No. 15, Mahavir Enclave Part
III, the accused inserted his finger into the urinating part of PW1.
Hence, as per the charge sheet/final report, the accused is alleged
to have committed the offence punishable under Section 6 of the
PoCSO Act.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIS/FIR of PW1 given on
07.03.2018, Crime no. 104/2018, Dabri Police Station, i.e., Ext.
A3 FIR was registered by CW17, Assistant Sub-Inspector. PW14
Assistant Sub-Inspector conducted investigation into the crime and
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 2 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

on completion of the same, filed the chargesheet/final report
alleging commission of the offence punishable under the
aforementioned Section.
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 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C). After hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide order dated 02.06.2018, framed a Charge under Section 5(m)
read with Section 6 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 15 were
examined and Ext. PW1/A-B, Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A, Ext.
PW6/A-D, Ext. PW7/A-B, Ext. PW8/A, Ext. PW10/A-C,
Ext.PW11/A-B, Ext. PW13/A, Ext. PW14/A-F, Ext. PW15/A,
Mark A to Mark C, Ext. A2, Ext. A3 and Ext. A5 were marked in
support of the case.
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 3 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

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. The accused submitted that PW1 had
been residing with him and his wife for the last 4 to 5 years and
that they were raising her as their own daughter. On the day of the
incident, he was sleeping at home as it was his day off, while his
wife (PW13) had gone to the market. PW1 was playing downstairs
and riding a bicycle with her friend. After some time, she came
home crying and was unable to explain clearly what had happened.
When PW13 returned home, PW1 informed her that she had fallen
and sustained an injury in her genital area. On checking, PW13
found bleeding from the PW1’s urinating part. Thereafter, he
immediately took PW1 along with his cousin brother (PW12) to a
clinic and thereafter to the DDU Hospital, pursuant to which,
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 4 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

according to him, a wrong case was registered against him. He
submitted that he was falsely implicated and arrested from the
hospital.
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
2888 ). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of
Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to him.
8. DW1 was examined on behalf of the accused. No
documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 5 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2025held the accused
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 5(m) and Section 6
of the PoCSO Act. Vide order on sentence dated 16.05.2025,
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10
years and to fine of ₹2,000/-. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred
this appeal.
10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that there are material improvements inPW1’s statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as she stated for the first time
that the accused had committed such acts with her twice before.
However, the said fact was neither stated in the FIR/FIS nor
reiterated during her deposition before the court. Immediately
upon noticing the bleeding, the accused himself took PW1 to a
nearby clinic and thereafter to DDU Hospital for medical
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 6 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

treatment. It was argued that had the accused actually committed
the alleged offence, he would not have voluntarily taken PW1 to
the hospital. PW13, who is the bua of PW1, deposed that PW1 had
informed her that she had sustained injuries after falling while
riding a bicycle. PW13 was the first person to whom PW1 narrated
the cause of injury, and, therefore, her testimony assumes
importance. Lastly, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt
ought to be extended to the appellant.
11. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that PW1 has
remained consistent throughout her testimony and, therefore, there
is no reason to doubt her version. The defence advanced by the
accused is self-contradictory and seems like an afterthought. The
medical evidence further corroborates the testimony of PW1.
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 7 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

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. Ext.
PW1/A FIS/FIR of PW1 recorded on 07.03.2018 reads thus:- She
is studying in Class I at Saint Tego Public School. On the night of
06.03.2018 at around 09:30 p.m., her mother (PW13) had gone to
Mangal Bazar to purchase vegetables. During this time, she was
alone at home with her father (the accused). She was lying in the
room, and her father was lying down with her while watching
television. While they were watching TV, her father was showing
her affection, and he held her by her arm. Her father lowered her
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 8 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

underwear and inserted his finger into her urinating part ( पापाने
मेरीथोड़ीसीक ीउतारीऔरअपनीएकऊँगलीमेरेपेशाबकरनेवाली
जगहमेघुसादी ). She experienced sharp pain, so her father removed
his finger and instructed her not to tell anyone, at which time her
mother returned with the vegetables. Later in bed, her mother
noticed wetness on her lower part. Her mother initially thought
that she had urinated. ( जबम ीनेसोते एमेरेनीचेगीलादेखा तो
म ीनेसोचामैनेपेशाबकरिदयाहै ) When the light was turned on,
her mother saw blood on her underwear. Her mother changed her
underwear, placed a cloth inside the new one, and woke her father
up as she was bleeding. On her mother’s insistence, her father
called a doctor, who advised taking her to Deen Dayal Hospital.
Her father and chacha then took her to Deen Dayal Hospital.
15. In Ext. PW1/B, the 164 statement of PW1, seen
recorded on 13.03.2018, she has stated thus - On Tuesday, her
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 9 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

father (the accused) did something wrong to her. The accused
inserted his finger into her urinating part. ( जहाँसेहम Toilet करतेहै
). She felt pain, and bleeding also occurred.
वहांअपनीऊँगलीघुसाई
Her father called a doctor, who advised taking her to Deen Dayal.
Her father then took her to Deen Dayal on the bike. Her father has
done this to her twice before.
16. PW1 when examined deposed that she was residing in
Delhi with her bua , namely, Ranjeeta (PW13) and her foofa , the
accused, namely, Jagbandhu Jaina. She used to address her bua as
“mummy” and the accused as “daddy”. She was studying in Class
III at St. Tagor Public School. She informed her bua that the
accused had committed a wrong act with her, as a result of which
she started bleeding. On her bua’s instruction, the accused took her
to the hospital, where she was examined by a doctor. She was
unaware as to who had called the police. Her mother was also at
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 10 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

the hospital. She was later taken to the Nirmal Chaya Ashram. She
had not told the police about the incident and did not know if her
Bua had done so. She identified her signature in Ext. PW1/A and
Ext. PW1/B Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. PW1 could not recall
if the doctor had taken her clothes during the medical examination.
She identified Ext. P1, her blood-stained top/frock, Ext. P2, her
samij and Ext. P3, bedsheet. She identified the accused before the
court.
16.1 The prosecutor is seen to have sought permission to
“cross-examine” PW1 as she was silent on some facts. The
request was allowed. On further examination, PW1 admitted that
the incident occurred on 06.03.2018 at approximately 09:30 p.m.
Her bua had changed the panty she was wearing at the time of the
incident before taking her to the hospital. The accused had
inserted his finger into her urinating part, causing the bleeding.
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 11 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

16.2 PW1 in her cross-examination denied the suggestion
that she had gone out to play with her friends on the date of the
incident. She denied the suggestion that her friend had a bicycle
and that on the day of the incident, she had gone to ride the
bicycle. She denied the suggestion that the bleeding from her
urinating part was caused by itching, scrubbing, or a fall while
playing. She denied the suggestion that the accused had not
committed any wrong act with her, or that the police had tutored
her regarding what to state before the court and that she had
deposed accordingly.
17. PW13, the bua of PW1 and the wife of the accused,
deposed that in the year 2018, PW1 was about 8 years old and was
residing with her and her husband, the accused. PW1 used to
address her as mother and the accused as daddy. She does not
remember the exact date, month or year. On that day, at about
08:00–08:30 p.m., she had gone to the Mangal Bazar nearby to
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 12 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

purchase vegetables, at which time PW1 was playing outside the
house. At about 09:30 p.m., when she returned, she saw PW1
sitting on the stairs leading from the ground floor to the first floor
and weeping. On enquiry, PW1 did not tell her anything. She then
took PW1 to their house and the latter went to the bathroom. When
PW1 came out of the bathroom, she noticed a few drops of blood
falling from her private part (vagina). She then enquired the matter
and then PW1 told her that while riding a bicycle, the latter had
fallen and sustained injury on her private part. She then informed
her husband, the accused, about the injury sustained by PW1. They
took PW1 to a nearby clinic, but found the clinic closed. The
accused then called the doctor, as the doctor’s number was
displayed on the board outside the clinic. The doctor informed the
accused over the phone that such incidents sometimes happen with
children and advised them to take PW1 to DDU Hospital. The
accused, along with his cousin brother (PW12), took PW1 to DDU
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 13 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

Hospital. Later, she also reached DDU Hospital. The police met
her in the hospital, and she narrated the aforesaid facts to them
regarding the injury sustained by PW1. The accused was arrested
by the police later. She does not know anything else about the
incident.
17.1. The prosecutor sought permission of the trial court to
“cross-examine” PW13 on the ground that she had resiled from her
earlier statement. The request was allowed. On further examination
by the prosecutor, PW13 denied having given any statement to the
police.
18. PW12, the brother of the accused, deposed that he does
not remember the exact date, month or year of the incident.
However, the incident had taken place about three years back. At
about 12:00 midnight, his cousin brother (the accused) called him
on his mobile phone and informed him that PW1 was unwell and
had to be taken to the hospital. He went to the house of the accused
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 14 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

on his motorcycle and accompanied the accused in taking PW1,
aged about 6 to 7 years, to DDU Hospital. PW1 was examined by
the doctor, and thereafter, the doctor asked the accused to bring his
wife to the hospital. The accused requested him to bring his wife to
the hospital. Accordingly, he went home and brought his bhabhi
(PW13) to the hospital. PW12 was never cross-examined.
19. I also make a brief reference to the testimony of the
defence witness. DW1, a neighbour, deposed that the accused was
residing with his wife and minor daughter. He had cordial relations
with the accused and used to converse with him in the evenings
after returning from work. On the day of the incident at about
09:30 p.m., he was watching television in the house of the accused
along with the latter. The wife of the accused and his daughter had
gone to the market to purchase vegetables. He remained in the
house of the accused for about one to two hours. After some time,
the wife of the accused (PW13) returned with their daughter
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 15 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

(PW1) and informed him that PW1 had sustained injuries while
riding a bicycle. Within half an hour, the accused, along with his
brother, took PW1 to a medical facility, the name of which he was
unable to recall.
20. Before the trial court, the Investigating Officer had
moved an application seeking bone ossification test of PW1, which
was allowed on 01.05.2018. As per Ext. A2 bone ossification
report, the age of PW1 stated as “bone age estimation of between 8
to 10 years.” The accused has not disputed the fact that PW1 is a
minor.
21. The testimony of PW1, the victim, constitutes the
foundation of the prosecution case. A careful reading of Ext.
PW1/A FIS/FIR; Ext. PW1/B statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C.; and the testimony of PW1 before the trial court shows that
she has remained consistent on all material particulars. It is well
settled that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 16 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

prosecutrix, provided that such testimony is of sterling quality,
inspires confidence and is free from material contradictions or
infirmities. At the same time, where the case rests solely upon the
oral testimony of the prosecutrix, the court must subject such
evidence to careful scrutiny, and if reasonable doubt arises as to its
reliability on material particulars, the benefit thereof must go to the
accused. [See Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8
SCC 21 and Nirmal Premkumar v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
260 ].
22. The defence of the accused as is seen from the
suggestions put to PW1 is that she had sustained injuries due to a
fall while riding a bicycle or while playing. However, PW1
categorically denied the said suggestions. No material(s) has been
brought out in her cross-examination to doubt or disbelieve her
testimony.
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 17 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

23. The local examination of genital parts of PW1 in Ext.
PW3/A MLC reads thus:
“ Local examination of genital parts:

B. External Genitalia
I. Labia Majora Any swelling, tears, edematous, bruises, abrasion:
———
II. Labia Minora Scratch, bruising, fingernail marks tear, infection:
———
III. Fourchette Bleeding, tear: bleeding tear
IV. Vulva injury, injury bleeding, discharge: Bleeding
V. Perineum: soaked with blood
C. Hymen – Intact/Torn: If Torn – Site, Nature, Extent of Injury:
Torn
Injury – fresh or old/oedema/congestion/tenderness:
fresh
D. Vagina & Cervix (any Bleeding/ tear/ discharge/ oedema/
tenderness) *
Speculum examination (if possible):
A 2 cm long vaginal tear
1 cm deep tear in perineal post-wal
E. Anus (encircle the relevant)
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 18 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

No bleeding”
(Emphasis supplied)
The medical evidence fully corroborates the version of
PW1.
24. According to the learned defence counsel, there are
material improvements in the 164 statement of PW1 as she, for the
first time, stated that the accused on two earlier occasions had also
committed such acts. It is true that PW1 has not mentioned this
fact either in her FIS/FIR or in her testimony before the court.
However, this omission is not of such a nature so as to demolish
the prosecution case especially when PW1 withstood the cross-
examination.
25. The evidence of PW13, though partly hostile, still
supports the prosecution case to a certain extent. PW13 admitted
that when she returned from the market, she found PW1 weeping
and later noticed bleeding from her private part. She also admitted
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 19 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

that PW1 was immediately taken to the hospital. Thus, the
testimony of PW13 corroborates the factum of injury and the
conduct immediately following the incident. Her testimony
remains unchallenged as there was no cross-examination
conducted on behalf of the accused. Merely because PW13
attempted to attribute the injuries to a fall from a bicycle would not
be sufficient to discard the otherwise reliable testimony of PW1,
particularly when PW13 is the wife of the accused. The defence of
false implication taken by the accused in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. has remained merely assertions unsupported
by any cogent material. Except for giving suggestions in cross-
examination, no evidence was brought on record to substantiate the
plea that PW1 sustained injuries accidentally or that the accused
had been falsely implicated.
26. It is also significant to mention that PW1 was residing
with the accused and PW13 and used to address the accused as her
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 20 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51

“daddy”, which establishes the position of trust and confidence
occupied by the accused in the life of PW1. There is no reason for
PW1 to make out a false case against the accused, a father figure.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can only be
concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this Court
finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial court
holding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the PoCSO Act.
28. The appeal sans merit is dismissed.
29. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
MAY 15, 2026
CRL.A. 1251/2025 Page 21 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:16.05.2026
09:37:51