Delhi High Court
Ram Jatan Yadav@Ram Jattan Yadav vs State on 17 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 10.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 17.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 316/2018
RAM JATAN YADAV@RAM JATTAN YADAV .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Bhupinder Yadav, Advocate.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the
State with S.I. Mary Deswal, P.S.
Civil Lines, Delhi.
Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta,
Advocate (DSLSA) with Ms. Mansi
Yadav, Mr. Sidharth Barua,
Mr.Shekhar Anand Gupta, Mr. Mike
Desai, Mr. Navneet Kaur, Ms.Shivani
Rampal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in
Sessions Case No. 28241/2016 on the file of Additional Session
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 1 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
Judge-05, (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi, assailing the judgment
dated 14.12.2017 and order on sentence dated 18.12.2017 as per
which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences
punishable under Sections 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the
IPC) and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO).
2. The prosecution case is that on 29.07.2015, at about 9:45
PM, while PW2 was returning home from her maternal
grandmother’s house, the accused wrongfully restrained her,
sexually assaulted and criminally intimidated her. It was also
alleged that for about six months prior to the incident, the accused
had been stalking and harassing PW2. Hence, as per the charge
sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the
offences punishable under Section 341, 354D IPC and Section 8
PoCSO Act.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS of PW2, given on
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 2 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
31.07.2015, Crime No. 301 of 2015, Civil Lines Police Station,
that is, Ext. PW1/A FIR was registered by PW6, Woman Sub-
Inspector (WSI). PW6 conducted investigation into the crime and
on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/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 them as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court as per order dated 09.02.2016, framed a Charge
under Sections 341, 354D, 363, 506 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 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 6 were examined
and Exts. PW1A-C, PW2/A-C, PW3/A-B, PW4/A, PW6/A and
Mark 3A.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 3 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
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. He denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence, stating that he had been falsely
implicated in the present case. He stated that he had given a loan of
₹6,000/- to the father of PW2 about one year before the alleged
incident, and when he asked for his money back, the father of PW2
started quarrelling with him, and akalandra under Section 107/151
Cr.P.C was also registered on 29.07.2015. He further stated that
PW2 has levelled false allegations against him at the instance of
her parents because of the said quarrel. He was beaten by the
father and brother of PW2, which also caused him injuries.
7. After questioning the accused persons 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
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 4 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
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. versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009
SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has no
case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any
prejudice to him.
8. On behalf of the accused, DWs. 1 to 3 and Exts. DW1/A
and A1 were marked.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned
judgment dated 14.12.2017, held the accused guilty under Section
235(2) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Section 341 IPC
and Sections 8 and 12 of the PoCSO Act. Consequently, the trial
court vide order dated 18.12.2017 sentenced the accused to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 5 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the
offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and to fine of ₹500/-
and in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for
seven days; to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and
fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the
PoCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment of 03 months and rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and fine of ₹1,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 8 of the PoCSO Act and in default of
payment of fine, simple imprisonment of six months. The
sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Benefit under
Section 428 Cr.P.C has also been granted. Aggrieved, the
appellant/accused has come up in appeal.
10. 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.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 6 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that there was an inordinate delay of two days in
lodging the FIR after the occurrence of the incident, which delay
has not been explained. Even assuming that the delay of one day
has been explained by the prosecution i.e., upto 30.07.2015, no
explanation whatsoever has been offered as to why the FIR was
not lodged upto 31.07.2015. It was further submitted that the
appellant has been falsely implicated due to a pre-existing
monetary dispute. The parents of PW2 had borrowed money from
the appellant and were reluctant to repay the loan. Owing to this
dispute, a fight had ensued between the accused and the parents of
PW2 and Annexure A3 Kalandra, under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C.
was lodged against the appellant on 29.07.2015. The learned
counsel also pointed out that on the night of 29.07.2015, the
appellant was not arrested in connection with the offences alleged
in the present case. He submitted that Ext. A1, the MLC of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 7 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
appellant/accused does not record any injury on his hand, despite
PW2 having categorically stated in her deposition that she had
bitten the appellant on his hand. Lastly, it was submitted that DW2
has conclusively proved the existence of the dispute relating to the
monetary transaction. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the trial
court ought not to have found the accused guilty of the offences
alleged against him, goes the argument.
12. Per Contra, it was submitted by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the
trial court calling for an interference by this Court.
13. I shall now briefly refer to the materials on record relied
on by the prosecution in support of the case. PW2/A, the FIS of
PW2, recorded on 31.07.2015 in Hindi translated roughly reads
thus:- “I study in 8thgrade at Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Majnu
Ka Tila, Delhi. My father works as a guard, and my mother, Vidya
Devi, does private work. A man named Ramjatan lives near our
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 8 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
house. For the last six months, he has been following me on my
way to and from school. He used to threaten me, saying I shouldn’t
tell anyone at home and he used to show me notes in his hand. On
the night of 29.07.2015, around 9:45 PM, when I was returning
home from my nani’s (maternal grandmother’s) house with some
water, Ramjatan was standing in the street. He grabbed my hand,
covered my mouth with his hand, and he touched my chest (मेरी
छाती पर हाथ लगाया….) and started dragging me toward his jhuggi.
When I tried to push him away and run, he grabbed my T-shirt,
causing it to tear from left arm. I bit his hand to free myself and
ran home. However, out of fear, I didn’t tell my parents. I only told
them that Ramjatan harasses me. When my mother confronted him,
he started fighting with us, about which we complained. On the
evening of 30.07.2015, when I was still upset, my mother asked me
again kindly, and I told her the whole truth that Ramjatan stopped
me and hit me on the chest, and threatened me. (म ी ने मे रे से ार
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 9 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
से पू छा तो मने सारी बात सच-सच बता दी रामजतन ने मु झे रोक कर मे री
छाती पर हाथ मारा और धमकाया….). My mother went to the police
station to complain, so the police came to my house and I told the
truth….”
13.1 PW2, in her 164 statement marked as PW2/D recorded
on 04.08.2015, reiterated her case in the FIS. She stated that when
she goes to school in the morning, the accused would come out of
his house and follow her all the way to school. This used to happen
every day. He used to show her 50 rupee note every day. When she
told him that she would tell her mother, he threatened her and said
that he would throw acid on her face and rape her. On 29.07.2015
at about 9:00 PM and 9:30 PM, when she was returning from her
nani’s house with water, Ram Jatan grabbed her hand and started
dragging her toward his jhuggi. He covered her mouth with his
other hand. He dragged her to the front of his house and began
pressing her chest. She tried to free herself and bit his hand. As she
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 10 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
attempted to run away, he grabbed her T-shirt, causing it to tear at
the sleeve. She ran and went to her house.”
13.2. PW2 in the box deposed that on 29.07.2015 at about
09:45 p.m., while she was returning from the house of her maternal
grandmother, it was dark and the accused was found standing in
the gali. He suddenly put his hand on her mouth, gagged her,
pulled her towards himself, and started touching her breast. She
tried to free herself and, after biting his hand, managed to free
herself and run away. The accused attempted to catch hold of her,
and in that process, the sleeve of her shirt was torn. She deposed
that prior to the incident, the accused used to make indecent
gestures towards her and also used to stand in front of her school.
The accused also used to show currency notes to her. She also
deposed that for about 10-15 days prior to the incident, the
accused had been doing the above-mentioned acts. She did not
disclose the incident to anyone as she was scared of the accused,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 11 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
who used to stare at her in a menacing manner. PW2 identified her
T-shirt marked as Ext. P1, which she was wearing at the time of
the incident.
13.3. PW2 in her cross-examination admitted that a quarrel
had taken place on 29.07.2015 between her family and the
accused. On the day of the incident, she had only disclosed that the
accused tried to catch hold of her, and on this information, her
father went to the house of the accused to question his behaviour.
She denied that any quarrel had taken place on 25.07.2015 or
27.07.2015 between her family and the accused. She stated that
she could not raise alarm as the accused had gagged her mouth
with his hand, and that she did not raise any alarm while running
away. She further stated that no one was present at the time of the
incident or while she was running away. She denied that there was
any monetary dispute between her family and the accused. She
stated that the accused sustained injury during the quarrel on
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 12 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
29.07.2015. She further deposed that one girl had seen the accused
when he used to stand in front of her school and make indecent
gestures. She denied the suggestions that she was deposing falsely,
or that no incident had taken place, or that the accused never made
indecent gestures.
14. PW3, the mother of PW2, identified the accused in the
court and deposed that the accused was having an evil eye on her
daughter. On 29.07.2015, her daughter had gone to fetch water
from her mother’s house, who was residing in the same lane, four
houses away from the house of the accused. When PW2 returned,
she found her to be very disturbed. On her persistent asking, PW2
disclosed that the accused had caught hold of her hand, and her
clothes were found torn. She went to the house of the accused and
slapped him twice. On seeing this, the public gathered there and
they also started slapping the accused. Thereafter, the accused
himself went to the Police Post. She was also called to the Police
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 13 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
Post, where, fearing social stigma, she did not disclose the entire
facts. On the next day, when she returned from work, she found
her daughter very disturbed and had not attended school. On
enquiries, her daughter disclosed the entire incident.
14.1. In her cross-examination, PW3 denied any financial
dispute between her family and the accused. She admitted that a
quarrel had earlier taken place with the accused in April 2014. She
clarified that the present incident occurred on 29.07.2015 and not
on 27.07.2015, and that the accused was not under the influence of
liquor at the time of the incident. She admitted that at the time of
the first incident on 29.07.2015, she had stated to the police that
the accused was creating a ruckus under the influence of liquor. It
had taken about 20-25 minutes for her daughter to return from her
nani’s house. She further deposed that she did not suspect anything
initially, as she believed her daughter was spending time with her
maternal family. According to PW2, people generally frequented
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 14 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
the alley, but after 9:30 p.m., most remained inside their houses,
and that there were about 100 jhuggies in the alley. PW2 further
deposed that her daughter disclosed the incident to her between
09:45 and 10:00 p.m. on the same night.
15. The accused offered himself as a witness and he was
examined as DW1. According to him, on 29.07.2015 at about 9:00
p.m., while the father of PW2 was passing through the front of his
house, he demanded repayment of the borrowed money of ₹6,000/,
which the latter had taken on the occasion of the marriage of his
daughter. However, PW2’s father refused to pay the amount,
quarrelled with him, and threatened him. DW1 further deposed
that PW2’s father was carrying a ‘plass’ in his hand with which he
gave blows on his forehead and eyes, as a result of which he
sustained injuries. Many people gathered at the spot. In his cross-
examination, DW1 admitted that he had not taken any receipt for
the loan of ₹6,000/-. He was unable to tell the name of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 15 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
daughter for whose marriage the said loan had been given.
15.1 DW2 deposed that he knows the accused as he lives in
the same locality. On 31.07.2015, he overheard the accused
quarrelling with his neighbour, whose name he does not know,
regarding ‘len-den’.
15.2 DW3, wife of the accused reiterated the case of her
husband. In her cross-examination, DW3 deposed stated that her
husband had given ₹6,000/- about two and a half years prior to the
date of the incident, at the time of the marriage of the elder sister
of PW2. She denied the suggestion that her husband was having an
evil eye on PW2 that he had done any ‘cherkhani’ with her. She
further denied the suggestion that any quarrel had taken place on
the said issue.
16. The fact that PW2 was minor at the time of the incident is
not disputed. To establish an offence under Section 341 IPC, the
prosecution must prove that the accused wrongfully restrained
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 16 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
PW2 and voluntarily obstructed PW2 so as to prevent her from
proceeding in a direction in which she had a right to proceed.PW2
has consistently stated in her FIS, Section 164 statement, and
deposition before the Court that on 29.07.2015, while she was
returning to her house from her maternal grandmother’s house, the
accused stopped her in the alley, caught hold of her hand, gagged
her mouth and dragged her towards his jhuggi, thereby preventing
her from proceeding to her house. This version has remained
consistent on material particulars and has not been shaken in cross-
examination.
17. Section 7 of the PoCSO Act defines sexual assault. It
says that whoever, with sexual intent, touches the vagina, penis,
anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina,
penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does
any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact
without penetration. PW2 has categorically deposed that the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 17 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
accused touched/pressed her chest/breast while gagging her mouth
and dragging her. The torn T-shirt Ext. P1, identified by PW2 and
noticed by the trial court as having a torn left sleeve, further
corroborates her testimony. PW3, mother of PW2, also noticed the
torn clothes immediately on PW2’s return on the date of the
incident.
18. Section 11(iv) of the PoCSO Act states that a person
commits sexual harassment upon a child when, such person with
sexual intent, repeatedly or constantly follows, watches, or
contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital, or any
other means. PW2 has stated that the accused used to make
indecent gestures and follow her for days.
19. It is true that the FIR in the present case was not lodged
immediately on the date of the incident, that is, on 29.07.2015. The
FIS was lodged only on 31.07.2015. However, PW2 has
consistently stated that out of fear and shock, she did not disclose
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 18 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
the entire incident to her parents on the same day and had only
partially informed them. The evidence further shows that a quarrel
took place on the same night, the police reached the spot, and the
accused was taken to the police post in connection with the
quarrel. Thus, the police machinery was already set in motion on
the date of the incident itself, though initially the matter was
treated as a quarrel. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2
SCC 384, it was observed that the courts cannot overlook the fact
that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due
to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix
or her family members to go to the police and complain about the
incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the
honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a
complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. The delay has not
resulted in any inconsistency in the version of PW2. Her account
has remained consistent in the FIS, her statement under Section
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 19 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
164 Cr.P.C., and her deposition before the Court. Accordingly, the
delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case, and
does not cast any doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version.
20. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant
regarding the absence of bite mark in Ext. A1 MLC of the accused,
does not create any doubt in the prosecution case. The alleged act
of biting was only an incidental act explaining how PW2 escaped,
and not an ingredient of the offence.
21. The version of the appellant/accused of false implication
due to a monetary dispute is not probabilised by materials on
record substantiated. DW1 could not even name the sister of PW2
for whose marriage the amount was alleged to have been paid. In
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575,
the Apex Court observed that a conviction can be sustained on the
sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence, and
there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 20 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration. It is also
settled law that the sole testimony of a victim can be relied upon to
decide a case of sexual assault, provided it is clear, trustworthy and
reliable, as held in Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573. I do not
find any reason(s) to reject or discard the testimony of PW2. In
such circumstances, the finding of guilt of the accused by the trial
court for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and
Sections 8 and 12 of the PoCSO Act suffers from no infirmity
calling for an interference by this Court
22. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 17, 2026/ER
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 316/2018 Page 21 of 21
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:18.02.2026
10:44:04
