State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Deepak

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 22.04.2026
Pronounced on: 04.05.2026
+ CRL. A.236/2021
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP with
Mr.Manvendra Yadav, Mr.Atiq
Ur Rehman, Advs.
SI Sandip Bishnoi, PS-
Mayapuri.
Versus
DEEPAK .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dinesh Malik, Mr. Akash
Saini, Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr.
Lavish Arora, Advs. with
respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
th
1. State takes exception to the judgment dated 18 December,
2019, whereby, the respondent Deepak has been acquitted of all the
charges levelled against him in SC No. 123/2014, in case FIR No.
211/2014 registered at Police Station Mayapuri, under Sections
363/365/366A/342/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter
referred to as the “ IPC ”] & Section 4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as (“ POCSO
Act ”)].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 1 of 21

FACTUAL MATRIX:
th
2. The brief facts of the case, as per charge sheet, are that on 09
May, 2014, on receipt of DD No. 24-A, SI Yogesh (PW-14) along
with Constable Surender (PW-9), went at the spot i.e. A-11/12,
Mayapuri, Phase-I, where, the mother of the prosecutrix (PW-3) met
them and gave the statement that her daughter “S” (name withheld),
aged about 16 years, has been missing since 4:30 am yesterday. She
suspected that some unknown person has lured her away. On such
statement, FIR No. 211/2014, under Section 363 IPC was registered at
PS Mayapuri.
3. During investigation, prosecutrix “S” (PW-2) was recovered.
On enquiry, she stated that she was sexually assaulted. Her medical
examination was got conducted. Before doctor, she gave the alleged
th
history of sexual assault the day before yesterday (09 May, 2014)
th
and yesterday (10 May, 2014). According to her, she was abducted
by her assailant, who lives near her neighbourhood, when she was
th
going to use the neighbourhood lavatory on 09 May, 2014 at around
4.00am-4.30 am. She was allegedly gagged and sexually assaulted by
th th
him over the course of two days (09 May, 2014 and 10 May, 2014).
4. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161
Cr. PC, wherein, she stated that she knew Deepak since last about 5-6
months. About one month before the occurrence, he proposed
th
friendship with her. On 09 May, 2014, at about 4.30 am, while she
had gone to the lavatory to ease herself, Deepak met her in the gali
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 2 of 21

and forcibly took her in his jhuggi , where, he sexually assaulted her.
th
She further stated that she had not eaten anything since 09 May,
2014, and because of the summer heat, she became unconscious.
th
According to her, Deepak indulged in “ Galat Kaam ” since 09 May,
th
2014. She further stated that on 11 May, 2014, her uncle Ramakant
and the Pradhan of the jhuggis Santosh, came and woke him up and
they were followed by her mother and father. Deepak was also
apprehended, and after sometime, the police also came at the spot.
Deepak was arrested.
5. Statement of prosecutrix got recorded under Section 164 Cr.
PC. Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini. The MCD birth certificate of
rd
the prosecutrix, as per which her date of birth was 23 January, 1999,
was seized, and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the respondent under Section 363/365/366-A/342/376 IPC and
under Section 4 of POCSO Act. Upon receipt of FSL result, the same
was filed in court with supplementary charge sheet and respondent
was sent to court for trial.
6. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366/342
IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act were framed against the respondent on
rd
03 January, 2015, to which, he pleaded not guilty.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses,
including the prosecutrix (PW-2), her mother (PW-3), father (PW-5),
concerned doctors (PW-6 and PW-7), Sub Registrar, Birth & Death
(PW-8) and the witnesses in whose presence the prosecutrix was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 3 of 21

recovered from the jhuggi of the respondent (PW-12 and PW-13),
Investigating Officer (PW-14) and other police officials.
8. Statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.
PC, wherein, he stated that he was innocent and was falsely
implicated. He stated that the prosecutrix was having love affair with
him and she used to come to his house in the night time, when her
th
parents go to sleep and on 09 May, 2014, she came to his house in
th
the night and in the morning of 10 May, 2014 at about 4.00 am when
she tried to leave his jhuggi , Ram Karan, who was residing in front of
his jhuggi , was sitting outside his jhuggi , so she did not go to her
house and stayed in his jhuggi . According to him, the prosecutrix told
her age to be above 18 years. He stated that he wants to marry her, but
due to different castes, the parents of the prosecutrix were not
accepting the same. Despite grant of opportunity, respondent did not
lead any evidence in his defence.
th
9. Vide judgment dated 18 December, 2019, the learned Trial
Court granted benefit of doubt to the respondent on the age of the
prosecutrix, and acquitted him of all the charges.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT/STATE:
10. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“ APP ”] for the
State submitted that the finding of the Trial Court regarding the age of
the prosecutrix is manifestly erroneous and contrary to settled legal
principles. It was contended that the prosecution had duly proved the
birth certificate through PW-8, the Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death),
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 4 of 21

who produced the official record along with the requisite certificate
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The birth certificate,
issued by the Municipal Corporation in the year 2009, records the date
rd
of birth of the prosecutrix as 23 January, 1999. The registration of
birth was effected well prior to the commission of the offence, thereby
ruling out any possibility of falsification or fabrication. The Trial
Court erred in discarding a duly proved public document issued by a
competent authority.
11. It was further submitted that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice
Act 2015 and Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule 2007 provides a clear
and exhaustive framework for determination of age, giving primacy to
documentary evidence such as birth certificates issued by municipal
authorities. The statute does not permit courts to resort to conjecture
or subjective assessment based on oral testimony when such
documentary evidence is available. The approach adopted by the Trial
Court, in preferring statements made during cross-examination of the
parents over a statutory record/document, amounts to impermissible
guesswork. The Learned APP contended that the law does not require
the court to go behind the basis on which a birth certificate was issued,
once it stands duly proved and has not been challenged in accordance
with law.
12. The Learned APP further emphasized that no suggestion or
challenge was put to PW-8 during cross-examination regarding the
authenticity or correctness of the birth record. The defence failed to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 5 of 21

question the process or basis on which the date of birth was recorded,
and thus, the document remained uncontroverted. In the absence of
any rebuttal or contrary evidence, the learned Trial Court ought to
have accepted the birth certificate as conclusive proof of age. It is a
settled proposition that a duly proved public document carries a
presumption of correctness, and mere oral assertions cannot displace
such documentary evidence.
13. In light of the above, it is submitted that the finding of the
learned Trial Court rejecting the birth certificate is perverse, illegal,
and unsustainable in law.
14. The prosecutrix, as per the birth certificate, was approximately
15 years of age at the time of the incident, clearly establishing that she
was minor at the time of commission of offence. The Learned APP
also points out that the DNA evidence on record conclusively
corroborates the prosecution case. Additionally, in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused has admitted that the prosecutrix was
with him and that he kept her confined for two days, albeit attempting
to characterize the relationship as consensual. Such an admission,
coupled with the established fact of the prosecutrix being minor,
further strengthens the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the findings of the Trial Court be set aside and the age of
the prosecutrix be determined on the basis of the birth certificate.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED:
15. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Accused submits that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 6 of 21

Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and
correctly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused. It was
contended that there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the parents of the prosecutrix regarding her date of birth. While the
mother (PW-3) stated in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix
was born approximately three years after her marriage in 1995,
thereby indicating the year of birth as 1998, the father (PW-5) deposed
rd
that the prosecutrix was born on 23 January, 1999. These
contradictory versions go to the root of the matter and create a serious
doubt regarding the exact age of the prosecutrix. It was further
submitted that such inconsistencies were rightly considered by the
Trial Court in concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the
age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt.
16. It was further argued that the birth certificate relied upon by the
prosecution does not inspire confidence, as it was registered nearly ten
years after the alleged date of birth. The Sub-Registrar (PW-8), who
produced the record, did not furnish any material to demonstrate the
basis on which the date of birth was recorded after such a prolonged
delay. No affidavit or supporting document from the parents was
brought on record to substantiate the entry made in the birth register.
Furthermore, the record itself indicates that the parents were illiterate,
and there are inconsistencies even regarding the circumstances of
birth. The Trial Court noted that there was medical assistance
available during the birth of the prosecutrix, while the father deposed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 7 of 21

that the child was born at home. In these circumstances, it is submitted
that the Trial Court was justified in doubting the authenticity and
reliability of the birth certificate.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled principle of
criminal jurisprudence that when two views are reasonably possible on
the evidence led, the one favouring the accused must be adopted.
18. It was lastly contended that the statement of the accused under
Section 313 CrPC indicates that the prosecutrix had accompanied him
of her own volition, they knew each other for 4-5 years, and the
prosecturix had represented herself to be a major, and that they were
in a consensual relationship. The surrounding circumstances and the
evidence on record, according to the defence, do not conclusively
establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the relevant time.
19. It was also highlighted that the respondent has already
undergone more than four years of incarceration during trial, and was
about 21 years of age at the time of the incident. In view of the doubt
surrounding the age of the prosecutrix and the unreliable evidence, it
was submitted that the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court calls for
no interference.
REBUTTAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT/
STATE:
20. In rebuttal, the learned APP for the State submitted that the
contentions advanced on behalf of the Respondent are misconceived
and do not dislodge the prosecution case. It was argued that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 8 of 21

alleged discrepancy in the testimonies of the parents is minor and
inconsequential, as the mother merely stated the prosecutrix was born
in the year “1998”, without specifying the month, which could range
from January to December 1998, whereas the father has given a
rd
specific date, that is, 23 January, 1999, as the date of birth of the
prosecutrix. Thus, the two versions of dates of birth of prosecutrix are
proximate and not materially contradictory, especially considering that
both witnesses were illiterate.
21. It was further contended that the entire reasoning of the
impugned judgment proceeds on an erroneous presumption of
consent, overlooking the material evidence on record. Reliance was
placed on the FSL report (Ex. PW-4/A), duly proved by PW-4 Anita
Chhari, Scientific Officer, which conclusively establishes that the
DNA found on the clothes, jeans and underwear of the prosecutrix
matches with the blood sample of the Respondent, thereby
corroborating the prosecution case beyond doubt.
22. He submitted that while it is a settled principle that where two
views are possible, the one favouring the accused should ordinarily be
adopted, the present case does not fall within that category, as the
findings of the Trial Court are perverse, based on mis-appreciation of
evidence, and is liable to be set aside.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
23. We have carefully examined the impugned judgment, the
evidence brought on record, and the rival submissions advanced on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 9 of 21

behalf of the parties.
24. The primary issue which arises for consideration pertains to the
determination of the age of the prosecutrix.
25. The Trial Court, in our opinion, has committed a serious error
in disregarding a duly proved public document, without any cogent
basis. The birth certificate (Ex. PW-8/C), issued by the Municipal
rd
Corporation, clearly records the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 23
January, 1999. The said document was proved in accordance with law
by PW-8, the Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death), who conclusively proved
the official record, i.e., the birth certificate. There is nothing on record
to suggest that the document is fabricated or unreliable. In such
circumstances, the rejection of this document by the Trial Court
appears to be unjustified and legally untenable.
26. It is further pertinent to note that during the cross-examination
of PW-8, no question was put by the defence challenging the
authenticity or correctness of the birth certificate. The defence did not
seek to discredit the witness nor did it question the basis on which the
entry was recorded in the official register. In the absence of any such
challenge, the document remained uncontroverted and ought to have
been accepted as reliable evidence. In the absence of any cogent
rebuttal, birth certificate issued by a competent authority can be relied
upon for determining age. The defence did not lead any evidence to
controvert the said document nor had it been able to demonstrate any
inherent inconsistency therein.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 10 of 21

27. The Trial Court, however, proceeded to discard the birth
certificate on speculative reasoning without there being any legal
justification. Such an approach runs contrary to established principles
governing appreciation of documentary evidence. The Court cannot
embark upon a speculative inquiry into the manner in which a public
document was created when its authenticity is not in dispute. The
failure to accord due weight to this document vitiates the findings of
the Trial Court.
28. The reasoning of the Trial Court that the birth certificate loses
its evidentiary value on account of delayed registration, is also
misconceived. It is not uncommon in rural and economically weaker
sections of society for births to be registered belatedly due to lack of
awareness or access to institutional mechanisms. In the present case,
the birth was registered in the year 2009, which is significantly prior
to the date of the incident in 2014. Therefore, the possibility of the
document being fabricated for the purposes of the case, stands
effectively ruled out. The delay in registration, by itself, cannot be a
ground to discard an otherwise valid document issued by a competent
authority. The Trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect and instead
treated the delay as fatal to the prosecution case. Such an approach is
not supported by law or judicial precedent. Accordingly, this Court
finds that the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court in this regard is
flawed.
29. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the State that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 11 of 21

Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule,
2007, as applicable at the time of commission of offence, provided a
clear statutory framework for determination of age. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC
263 , inter alia , held that Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rule, 2007 should be basis for determining the
age, even of a child who is a victim of crime. The rule gives primacy
to documentary evidence such as a birth certificate issued by a
competent authority. The date of birth certificate issued by a
competent authority falls within the third category of preference under
Rule 12(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rule,
2007 for determining the age of a child.
30. In the present case, the birth certificate was issued from the
Municipal Corporation. Once such a document is available and duly
proved, the Court is not required to resort to conjecture or rely upon
oral testimony. The Trial Court, however, deviated from this statutory
mandate, by placing undue reliance on the statement of the mother
recorded during cross-examination. The discrepancies in her
testimony, particularly regarding the exact year of birth, cannot
override a duly proved statutory document. The law does not permit
the Court to substitute documentary evidence with approximations
derived from oral statements. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court
on the issue of age is unsustainable.
31. Even otherwise, the inconsistencies highlighted by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 12 of 21

respondent in the testimonies of the parents, do not materially affect
the prosecution case. The mother merely stated that the prosecutrix
was born around three years after her marriage in 1995, which would
broadly indicate the year 1998, without specifying the exact date or
month. The father, on the other hand, provided a specific date of birth
rd
of prosecutrix, that is, 23 January, 1999, which is in consonance with
the date recorded in the birth certificate Ex. PW-8/C. The birth
certificate issued by the competent authority cannot be disbelieved
only because the mother failed to give the exact date of birth. Such
discrepancy cannot be elevated to the level of creating a reasonable
doubt regarding the age of the prosecutrix. Whether the year of birth
rd
was 1998, as stated by the mother, or 23 January, 1999, as stated by
the father and also recorded in the birth certificate, either way, the
prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. Accordingly, we
hold that prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of the
offence.
32. Once it is established that prosecutrix was minor, the entire
foundation of the Trial Court’s reasoning on consent collapses, as
being legally untenable. The Trial Court in the impugned judgement
regarding this aspect, recorded its finding as under:
“30. As per PW2/victim, PW3/mother of the
victim and PW5/father of the victim, public
toilets from where victim was taken away, was
at a walking distance of five minutes from their
house. Jhuggi of the accused from where
victim and accused were recovered was in the
next street at a walking distance of about two
minutes from victim's jhuggi.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 13 of 21

31. Cross-examination of PW14/IO SI Yogesh
shows that the area was a thickly populated
one. The jhuggi of accused from where victim
was recovered was at a distance of 30-35
meters from the spot from where victim was
taken away by the accused. There was only
one public toilet in the area. Testimony of the
victim shows that she was taken away when
she was 4 to 5 steps away from the public
toilet. The street in front of the jhuggi of
accused from where the victim was recovered
is around 4 to 5 feet wide. The testimonies of
PW2, PW3 and PW4 also confirm that there
are houses opposite to the jhuggi of the
accused where he stayed with the victim for
two days.
32. All the three spots i.e. jhuggi of the victim,
jhuggi of the accused and public toilets were
closely situated. Thus, detection of a person in
case some effort was made by such person
herself would not be difficult.
Consent
33. Since it could not be proved beyond doubt
that the victim was a minor at the time of
incident, the issue of consent gains
importance.
34. The victim has deposed that on the day of
incident (09.05.2014) at 4:30 AM, she was
going to the public toilet alone. Before she
could enter the public toilet, accused came
from behind and gagged her mouth because of
which she became unconscious. When she
regained her consciousness, she found herself
in the room of the accused. The accused kept
her in the locked room for two days during
which he had forcible sexual intercourse with
her repeatedly. She was rescued on
11.05.2014.
35. Testimonies of the PWs show that the
jhuggi where victim was kept was locked from
outside. When the lock was broken on
11.05.2014, victim and the accused were both
found inside the room. There is no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 14 of 21

investigation or any explanation as to how the
room was locked from outside when the
accused was present with the victim inside the
room. There is also no investigation or any
explanation as to who had locked the said
room/jhuggi from outside. The said lock was
also not seized during investigation.
36. It has been pointed out by Ld. Amicus
Curiae for the accused that it has been
observed by the examining doctor in the MLC
of the victim (Ex. PW6/A) that the patient has
allegedly taken bath with water on 09.05.2014
and 10.05.2014 but did not change her clothes.
It has been argued that there is no
investigation regarding the availability of
toilet or bathroom in the jhuggi of the accused,
and their location. It is submitted that this
factor is important to ascertain whether the
victim was in fact illegally confined or if she
was free to move around and even go out of
the room/jhuggi of the accused. There is no
investigation on this aspect.
37. Testimony of the victim shows that during
this period of 2 to 3 days (09.05.2014 to
11.05.2014), she made no attempt to flee or
raise alarm at any point of time including the
times when the accused had sexual intercourse
with her. Her explanation is that she tried to
shout but her voice failed her. She was
specifically asked in her cross-examination if
she tried to beat the door of the house of the
accused. The victim replied that accused was
physically holding her in his grip and did not
let her go till the door (Ye mujhe pakad ke
baitha hua tha aur mujhe darwaze tak bhi
jaane nahi diyatha). This circumstance is
doubtful as the accused could not have
physically held the victim in his grip
continuously for two or three days.
38. As per the parents of the victim (PW2 and
PW3), when the lock of jhuggi of accused was
broken open, they found the victim lying
unconscious on the floor of the room and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 15 of 21

accused sitting on the bed. Independent public
witnesses, PW12 Sh. Santosh and PW13 Sh.
Ramakant, were also examined. PW13 has
deposed that when the door was opened,
victim was found lying on the floor and
appeared to have fainted. PW12, who was
Pradhan of that area and was instrumental in
rescue of the victim, deposed that when the
door was opened, victim was found lying on
the floor and was in a perplexed and nervous
state. It has been argued by Ld. Amicus Curiae
that discovery of her relationship with the
accused made the victim extremely nervous
and perplexed. Ld. Amicus Curiae has also
pointed out that PW12 and PW13 have both
stated that in their presence, the victim told the
police that on 09.05.2014, accused had enticed
her by saying that he could marry her. Even
though, no such statement of the victim is on
record but the version of PW12 and PW 13 do
create a doubt regarding the manner and
circumstances in which the victim
accompanied the accused.
39. The abovesaid circumstances create a
substantial doubt in the story of the
prosecution that the victim was forcibly taken
away by the accused and that the accused
illegally confined her and subject her to
forcible sexual intercourse. The benefit of
doubt, therefore, goes to the accused.”
33. The Trial Court proceeded to examine surrounding
circumstances such as the proximity of the jhuggis , the density of the
locality, and the alleged conduct of the prosecutrix to infer the
possibility of consent, and the Respondent during the trial and even
now has sought to contend that the prosecutrix had represented herself
to be a major and had voluntarily accompanied the respondent to
his jhuggi . However, now since the prosecutrix is found to be a minor,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 16 of 21

such an inquiry into consent or voluntariness is wholly misplaced in
law. The POCSO Act creates a strict statutory framework wherein the
consent of a minor is rendered wholly irrelevant. The legislative intent
behind the enactment is to afford heightened protection to children
against sexual exploitation and abuse. Consequently, any ostensible
willingness or voluntary participation by the prosecutrix, cannot be
construed as valid consent in the eyes of law. The trial court’s
reasoning that the prosecutrix could have been detected had she made
efforts or that the accused could not have confined her continuously
for two days, does not dilute the statutory mandate. Even assuming for
the purpose of argument that the prosecutrix did not resist or that she
remained with the accused without immediate protest and willingly,
such conduct cannot legalize the act. The law does not recognize the
capacity of a minor to consent to sexual activity under any
circumstances.
34. The testimony of prosecutrix was recorded in question-answer
form. In such statement, she deposed that “accused caught me from
backside and gagged my mouth and I became unconscious, when I
regained my conscious, I found myself in the room of the accused” .
She further deposed that thereafter “accused did zabardasti ki, mein
chillane ki koshish kar rahi thi aur meri awaz nahi nikal rahi thi” .
When asked to explain as to what she meant by “ zabardasti ”, she
stated that “ Deepak ne mere saath zabardasti saaririk sambandh
banaye .” She further stated that “do din tak isne mujhe taale me band
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 17 of 21

kar ke rakha tha fir mummy papa ke sath Inspector aaya tha usne
mujhe waha se chhudwaya tha ”. According to her, she was raped by
the accused twice.
35. In cross examination, she was questioned as to whether she
raised any hue and cry either on the way or on the arrival at the house
of the accused, to which, she stated “ Me chillayee thi par muh se
awaaz nahi nikal rahi thi ”. When further questioned as to whether she
beat the door of the house of the accused, she replied “ ye mujhe pakad
ke baitha hua tha aur mujhe darwaje tak bhi jaane nahi diya tha .”
These questions were put by the defence to show that the prosecutrix
voluntarily went to the jhuggi of the accused, which fact becomes
clear from the further questions put to the prosecutrix. It was
suggested to her that she used to send the letters to the accused
through Indu, who lives in front of the house of the accused. She was
also given the suggestion that she was in love affair with the accused.
th
She denied the suggestion that on 09 May, 2014, she had voluntarily
gone to the house of the accused. She denied that she used to go to the
room of the house of the accused in the night time after her parents go
th
to sleep. She denied the suggestion that in the morning of 10 May,
2014 at about 4.00 am, when she tried to go out of the room of the
accused, father of Indu was found to be sitting in front of the room of
the accused, due to which, she could not go out from the room of the
accused. She denied that at her suggestion, accused had put lock from
outside his room so that her parents may not know that she was there
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 18 of 21

in the room of the accused. She denied the suggestion that accused
served her food and thereafter had also used the toilet, built in the
house of the accused.
36. In cross examination of PW-3 and PW-5, that is, parents of the
th
prosecutrix, similar suggestions were given to them, that on 09 May,
2014, their daughter had gone to meet the accused and since one Ram
Karan was present in front of the jhuggi , she could not leave from
there.
37. On the basis of the questions put during the cross examination
of the prosecutrix and her parents, it is evident that respondent does
th
not even dispute that prosecutrix was in his jhuggi on 09 May, 2014
th
and 10 May, 2014, even though, he claims that she came to his
jhuggi voluntarily. The defence of the respondent suggesting a
possible relationship between him and the prosecutrix does not
override the statutory prohibition under the POCSO Act, which
criminalizes sexual acts with minors irrespective of consent or
relationship. It is a settled position, reiterated in numerous judicial
pronouncements, that the consent of minor is no consent in the eyes of
law and therefore even if the relationship between the prosecutrix and
the respondent was consensual, is of no legal consequence.
38. As per the history recorded in the MLC of the prosecutrix Ex.
PW-6/A, the prosecutrix had taken bath with water but had not
changed her clothes that she was wearing at the time of assault. PW-1
W. Constable Komal deposed that after medical examination, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 19 of 21

doctor had handed over a parcel, duly sealed with the seal of DDU
Hospital, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/A. She further
deposed that the undergarment of the victim was also sealed with the
seal of “SY” and seized vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. The clothes were
shown to the prosecutrix during evidence and were identified by her.
39. The FSL result Ex. PW-4/A, conclusively establishes through
DNA profiling (STR analysis), that the seminal stains detected on the
exhibits, namely the jeans pant (Exhibit ‘11a’) and underwear (Exhibit
‘16’) of the prosecutrix, match with the DNA profile derived from the
blood gauze sample of the respondent (Exhibit ‘17’). The report
clearly records that the biological material found on the clothes of the
prosecutrix is similar to that of the respondent, thereby, directly
linking him to the act in question. This is not merely corroborative in
nature, but constitutes substantive direct scientific evidence proving
that sexual intercourse did in fact occur between the prosecutrix, who
was a minor of 15-16 years of age at the time of incident and the
respondent. The presence of the respondent’s DNA on the intimate
clothing of the prosecutrix further negates the defence of denial and
directly connects him with commission of the offence. Significantly,
the respondent has neither challenged the collection of samples nor the
procedure adopted for DNA analysis, and no suggestion has been put
to discredit the findings of the expert witness (PW-4). The FSL report
carries high degree of evidentiary value and reliability and clearly
establishes the involvement of the respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 20 of 21

40. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Trial
Court is perverse and erroneous and also suffers from serious
infirmities in appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court has ignored
material evidence, misapplied legal principles, and arrived at
conclusions which are not supported by the settled propositions and
the law. The prosecution has successfully established that the
prosecutrix was a minor at the time of commission of offence and that
the respondent committed sexual intercourse with her. The benefit of
doubt extended by the Trial Court is not based on reasonable grounds
but on speculative reasoning. Such a judgment cannot be allowed to
stand. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment
th
dated 18 December, 2019 is set aside.
41. The Respondent Deepak is hereby convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 363/366/342 IPC and Section 6 POCSO
Act.
th
42. The matter be listed on 7 May, 2026 for hearing the Convict
Deepak on the point of quantum of sentence.
43. In the meanwhile, fresh Nominal Roll of the respondent be
called from Superintendent Jail.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
MAY 04, 2026/na/ ib
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:04.05.2026
17:08
CRL. A. 236/2021 Page 21 of 21