Delhi High Court
Manoj vs State on 25 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 16.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 352/2017 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 8093/2020
MANOJ .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Azhar Qayum, Advocate.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Lokesh Kumar, PS - Govindpuri.
Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Mr. Shaurya
Lamba and Ms. Ishita Sehrawat,
Advocates for the prosecutrix.
+ CRL.A. 887/2017
MUKESH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohan J. Alva, Advocate
(DHCLSC).
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Lokesh Kumar, PS - Govindpuri.
Mr. Anindya Malhotra, Mr. Shaurya
Lamba and Ms. Ishita Sehrawat,
Advocates for the prosecutrix.
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 1 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In these appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), accused nos. 1 and 3 in
Sessions Case No. 16/2013 and 2301/2016 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Judge- Special, Fast Track Court, Saket
Courts, New Delhi assail the judgment dated 20.12.2016. By the
said judgment, accused no. 1 (A1) has been convicted and
sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 34,
376, 376(2)(g) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the
IPC). Accused no. 3(A3) has been convicted and sentenced for the
offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that A1 to A3, in furtherance of
their common intention, kept PW3 wrongfully confined at House
No. 1188/13, First Floor, Govind Puri, New Delhi for about one
year immediately before her rescue on 12.06.2012, and repeatedly
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 2 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
subjected her to rape, physical assault, intimidation, and sexual
exploitation by multiple persons. It is further alleged that A4, an
auto driver, facilitated the commission of the offences by taking
PW3 to the said house and leaving her there. Hence, the accused
persons are alleged to have committed offences punishable under
Sections 323, 342, 366, 376(e), 376(2)(g), 341 read with 34 IPC.
3. Based on Ext. PW3/A FIS of PW3, crime no. 284/2012
Govind Puri Police Station, that is, Ext. PW10/A FIR, was
registered by PW16, Sub Inspector. PW16 conducted investigation
into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the
chargesheet/final report before the Court, alleging the commission
of the offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.
4. When the accused persons were produced before the trial
court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to
them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. Thereafter, in
compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C, the case was committed to the
Court of Session concerned.
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 3 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
5. On appearance of the accused persons before the trial court
and after hearing both sides, as per order dated 05.11.2012, a
Charge under Sections 342 read with Section 34, 323 and
376(2)(g) IPC against A1; Sections 342 read with Section 34, 109
and 366 IPC against A2 and 376(2)(g) IPC against A3 was framed.
Vide Order dated 14.05.2013, a Charge under Sections 366, 109,
read with 376 IPC was framed against A4. The Charges were read
over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded
not guilty.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 20 and CW1-2
were examined and Exts. PW1/A-B, PW2/A, PW3/A, PW16/B,
PW4/A-B, PW5/A-C, PW9/A-B, PW10/A-B, PW11/A-B,
PW13/A, PW16/A-L, PW18/A, PW19/A and Mark X, Ext.
CW2/A-C and Ext. CW1/A to CW1/B were marked.
7. After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused
persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding
the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 4 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those
circumstances and maintained their innocence. During the trial, A2
absconded and hence, was declared a proclaimed offender on
20.07.2015.
7.1. A1 submitted that PW3 was working as a maid, and that
there was a dispute over her salary, which led to her making a false
story implicating all the accused persons without any basis. He
also submitted that she was a habitual liar.
7.2. A3 submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the
case.
7.3. A4 submitted that on 21.08.2013, while he was waiting
in his auto at the auto stand, by about 04:00 pm- 4:30 pm. Angesh
and PW3, whom he did not know earlier, asked him to drop them
at Gali No. 13, Govind Puri. On the way, Angesh and PW3 started
quarrelling and he told them to stop as it might cause a problem for
him. He dropped them at the aforesaid address. PW3 and Angesh
met A1 and A3. They all started quarrelling amongst themselves.
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 5 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
He asked them to pay his fare, A3 slapped and threatened him and
asked him to leave, or else he would be beaten up severely.
Thereafter, A1 paid him ₹50/- and he left. On 20.11.2012, at about
10:00-10:30 a.m., the person-in-charge of the auto stand came to
his house and informed him that his vehicle was involved in a road
accident and the former insisted that he should accompany the
former to the police post near Hamdard Auto Stand. From the
police post, after about half an hour, he was taken to Govind Puri
Police Station, where he was made to sign few blank papers and
was questioned regarding the case. He told the police that that he
only had dropped PW3 and Angesh at Gali No. 13 on their request.
A4 alleged that PW16, the IO, demanded ₹10,000/- for releasing
him, which he could not pay. Thereafter, his friends Miraj and
Krishna, residents of Sangam Vihar, and later his elder sister Sira
and mother Ruksana, were called to the police station. They paid a
sum of ₹4,000/- to PW16. Despite the payment, he was arrested,
kept in the lock-up, produced before the court the next day, and
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 6 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
remanded to judicial custody. As he was unable to pay ₹10,000/-
to PW16, he has been falsely implicated in the case.
8. 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
Section 232 Cr.P.C is seen made 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 persons have no case that
non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to
them.
9. DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of A4. No oral
or documentary evidence was adduced by A1 and A3.
10. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the impugned
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 7 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
judgment dated 20.12.2016, held A1 guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 342 read with 34, 376, 376(2) (g) and
323 read with 34 IPC; A2 (proclaimed offender) of the offences
punishable under Sections 342 read with 34, 366, 109 and 323 read
with 34 IPC and A3 of the offence punishable under Section
376(2)(g) IPC. A4 has been acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
of the offences charged against him. A1 has been sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for eleven years and fine of ₹20,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a period
of six months for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(g)
IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine of
₹10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence
punishable under section 376 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year for the offence punishable under section 342
read with 34 IPC and imprisonment for a period of one year for the
offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC. A3 has
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 8 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of
₹20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under
section 376(2)(g) IPC. The sentences have been directed to run
concurrently. Aggrieved, A1 and A3 have preferred these appeals.
11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for A1 that the
testimony of PW3 is inconsistent and has undergone material
improvements at every stage, and therefore, she cannot be treated
as a sterling witness. It was further submitted that there were
multiple occasions when PW3 had the opportunity to raise an
alarm, yet she failed to do so. Accordingly, it was submitted that
the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of A1 beyond
reasonable doubt, and that the benefit of doubt must necessarily
accrue in his favour.
12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for A3 that the
latter was never named and no role attributed to him either in Ext.
PW3/A FIS or in Ext. PW2/A MLC of PW3. The allegations
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 9 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
against him surfaced only later, by way of material improvements
in the testimony of PW3 during the trial. It was submitted that
there is a serious and unexplained inconsistency with respect to the
duration of the crime. As per one version, the alleged incident
occurred about a week before 12.06.2012, whereas in another
version it is stated to have continued for nearly one year. The
allegations of physical assault and administering injections are not
supported by Ext. PW2/A MLC of PW3, which records no external
or internal injuries on PW3. The testimony of independent
witnesses PW12 and PW14 does not support the prosecution case
against A3. Lastly, the prosecution case suffers from fundamental
deficiencies and inconsistencies at every stage.
13. It was submitted by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor that even assuming that PW3 is not a sterling witness,
her testimony is corroborated and proved from the testimony of
other prosecution witnesses as well as the evidence on record. He
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 10 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
calling for an interference from this Court.
14. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
15. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal
is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the
appellants/ A1 and A3 by the trial court are sustainable or not.
16. I shall briefly refer to the evidence relied on by the
prosecution in support of the case. The gist of the case of PW3 in
Ext. PW3/A the FIS, seen recorded on 12.06.2012 reads as
follows: She was with her parents at the address mentioned in the
FIS. Immediately before Holi, she eloped with her paternal uncle’s
son, Angesh, who lived in her neighbourhood, because she loved
him. Both of them came to Saharanpur. There, Angesh left her in a
hotel room and never returned. After waiting for him, she
wandered from place to place and later took a train to Delhi. At the
railway station, she met a boy whose name she does not know. He
took her to a bungalow (kothi), where she started working as a
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 11 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
cook. The people living there treated her well, but she does not
know their address. While working there, she met a girl named
Sunita, who worked in another bungalow. Sunita lived in Pul
Prahladpur, but she does not know her exact house address. Sunita
helped her get a rented room in Sangam Vihar. While living in
Sangam Vihar, she met Zakir (A4). She met A4 on the road and
asked him where she could find an auto. A4 told her that he drives
an auto. She met A4 two to three times and they became friends.
About seven days back, A4 met her in the evening in Sangam
Vihar and told her that he would take her to meet his sister-in-law
(bhabhi). She went in his auto. A4 took her to the house of Manoj
(A1) and Babita(A2) in Govindpuri. At their house, A1 and A2
gave her alcohol to drink. A4 also drank alcohol with them and
then left for his home. A2 stopped her from leaving, saying it was
late and that she should go in the morning. After that, A1 forcibly
removed her clothes and raped her. They also beat her. The next
morning, when she tried to leave, A2 stopped her, slapped her, and
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 12 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
told her that she would not be allowed to go and must do as they
said. Both of them kept her locked inside the house. A1 continued
to rape her repeatedly, and A2 fully assisted him. Last night, A2
brought her to another house by threatening her. A1also came to
the house after a little while. A man named Mukesh (A3) was also
present in that house. A1 and A2 beat her very badly. A2 told her
thatshe would have to sleep naked with A1 (..तुझे मे रे आदमी के साथ
नं गी होकर सोना पड़े गा). Both A1 and A2 forcibly removed her
clothes, and A1 raped her three to four times against her will at
A3’s house. She kept crying and pleading with A1, A2, and A3 to
let her go, but none of them listened. In the morning, she saw a
person through the bathroom window. She threw her toothbrush at
him and signalled him to call the police and help her escape. That
person called the police. The police arrived and rescued her from
the house.
17. PW3, when examined before the trial court, deposed that
she could not recollect the exact date, however, about ten days
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 13 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
after Rakshabandhan, around three years ago, her neighbour
Angesh brought her to Dehradun and thereafter brought her to
Delhi. Angesh had promised to marry her. Initially, Angesh took
her to the house of A1, A2 and A3 at Govind Puri. Angesh
introduced her to them as his wife. A4 told Angesh to leave her, as
she was a minor. Thereafter PW3 deposed that Angesh first took
her to the house of A4, an auto driver. At the request of Angesh, A4
took her to the house of A1, A2, and A3. Angesh told A4 that he
would pay the money/auto fare and that she should be dropped at
the house of the A1 to A3. In the said house, A1 forcibly removed
her clothes and raped her. Thereafter, Angesh also raped her at the
same house. When she raised an alarm, A2 shut her mouth and
facilitated the commission of rape by Angesh. During her stay at
the said house, A3 used to give her injections and also used to
bring boys to rape her. About 10 to 20 boys came to the said house
through A3, and they also raped her. A1 to A3 confined her in the
said house for about one year, during which time A1, Angesh, and
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 14 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
A3 repeatedly raped her. During this period, Angesh used to visit
the said house every Saturday, stay overnight, and leave on the
following Sunday. A4 did not do any wrongful act on her, but he
only left her at the house and went away.Whenever boys used to
come to the house to rape her, she used to raise alarm, but A2 used
to shut her mouth and help the boys rape her. During the said
period, A1 to A3 and Angesh took her to three other places and
forced her to have sexual intercourse with boys whom they had
called there. She repeatedly requested them to let her go, but they
did not allow her to leave. Whenever she wept, they told her that
they would shift her to some other place. One day, when A1 to A3
were sleeping, she sought permission to go to the bathroom at
about 5:00 a.m. on the pretext of taking a bath. From the bathroom
window, she threw her toothbrush at a boy (PW12), who was going
to college. When the boy looked at her, she gestured to him to call
the police. Two police officers arrived at the scene of occurrence
and apprehended A1 to A3. Angesh had introduced her to A4 for
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 15 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
the first time at an auto stand in Sangam Vihar. She further stated
that she could not recollect the date on which she was rescued by
the police, but it was about three years ago. She also had not seen
the boys who had visited the house paying any amount to the
accused persons after they had sexual intercourse with her.
According to PW3, A1, A2, and Angesh used to beat her every
month. She was confined in the said house for about one year
before the filing of the FIR. PW3 further deposed that a child was
born to her due to the physical abuse/rape by the aforesaid persons.
But she does not know who the biological father of her child is.
The Prosecutor then sought the permission of the Court to “cross-
examine” PW3 qua A4. On further examination by the prosecutor,
PW3 denied that A4 met her for the first time at Sangam Vihar, or
that he had taken her to the house of A1 and A2. She also denied
that A4 had consumed liquor with the rest of the accused at the
house of A1 and A2.
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 16 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
17.1. PW3 in her cross-examination deposed that A3 used to
give her injections three times a day. She did not tell the doctor
about the injections at the time of her medical examination. A3 and
other accused persons used to take her outside the house on foot,
and the walking distance was about two to three minutes. She used
to be taken outside the house during late-night hours. Whenever
she was taken outside, the accused persons used to tie her mouth
with a dupatta and tie her hands behind her back with another
chunni. A3 used to call boys by making phone calls. There were
other houses near the said house. She could not raise any alarm or
call the neighbours as she was kept in a room with the door bolted.
She further stated that there was a house in front of the window of
the room where she was kept, through which she had thrown the
toothbrush. When she had tried to raise an alarm from the said
window, A2 gagged her mouth, due to which she could not seek
assistance from outside the house. PW3 denied the suggestion that
she had eloped with Angesh on her own free will or that she had
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 17 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
conceived her child through Angesh. She denied the suggestion
that she has falsely implicated A3 in order to save Angesh. PW3
denied having gone to Dehradun before coming to Delhi, but she
had gone to Saharanpur. She denied the suggestion that Angesh
had left her at Saharanpur and that she had come to Delhi alone.
She had stated to the police that Angesh introduced her to the
accused persons as his wife and that A4 told Angesh to leave her,
stating that she was a minor. She further deposed that Angesh first
took her to the house of A4 and thereafter, on the request of
Angesh, A4 took her to the house of A1 to A3. She further deposed
that she had stated to the police that Angesh had also raped her at
the said house after A1. According to PW3, A1 first raped her, at
which time his wife, A2, caught hold of her hands. At the said time
A3 was cooking in another room. The accused persons never gave
her any money. During her stay, Angesh used to come to the house
every Saturday and after staying overnight, he used to leave on the
following Sunday. PW3 deposed that she had raised an alarm at the
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 18 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
time of rape, but no one from outside came to save her. She could
not run away from the clutches of A2 while she was taken outside,
as A2 used to hold her hand. PW3 deposed that once she was taken
to a doctor by the accused persons for medical treatment, as she
had swelling on her body due to beatings with a belt. The accused
persons told her that they were taking her to a market to purchase
footwear, but instead took her to the doctor. They reached the
doctor’s place at about 8:00 PM in Govindpuri, where A1 and A2
held her hands. No other patient was present at the clinic. The
accused persons were present when the doctor prescribed
medicine. The doctor did not ask her anything, PW3 was unable to
recall the name of the doctor. She did not tell the doctor about the
offences committed on her as the accused persons had threatened
her not to disclose anything, failing which they would kill her. She
denied the suggestion that she stayed at the said house on her own
free will or that she was working as a maid there. She further
denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely due to a
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 19 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
dispute regarding salary. She denied the suggestion that despite
having opportunities, she did not escape or raise any alarm. She
denied the suggestion that she went to live with the accused
persons of her own accord and that no offence was committed
against her.
18. PW12 deposed that on 12.06.2012, at about 08:20 AM,
while he was standing on the ground floor of his house, a
toothbrush fell on him from the first floor of the building opposite
to his building. He went upstairs to the chhajja and saw a girl
seeking help from the bathroom. He called PW14, his mother and
as instructed by his mother he informed the police. He took the
police officials to the floor from which the girl had sought help.
PW12 in his cross-examination, deposed that he had not seen PW3
prior to the date of the incident. He does not know the people who
had visited the house. He had not heard any cries of PW3.
19. PW14, the mother of PW12 supports the version of her
son. She noticed that a girl was standing in the bathroom of the flat
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 20 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
and crying. The girl requested her to inform the police. She asked
her son to call the police. She could not remember the number of
the flat. In her cross-examination, PW14 deposed that she did not
notice anyone accompanying the girl. She further stated that she
had never met the girl earlier. PW14 was unable to identify PW3 in
Court.
20. PW16, Sub-Inspector, Kalkaji Police Station, deposed
that on 12.06.2012, upon receiving information regarding a rape,
she reached Govind Puri Police Station, where SI Hansraj
produced the prosecutrix and A1, A2 and A3. She made inquiries
from PW3 and recorded Ext. PW3/A FIS and sent her to AIIMS
for medical examination. She interrogated the accused persons and
arrested them. PW16 deposed that she also made inquiries
regarding Angesh at Haridwar, against whom allegations had been
levelled by PW3, but no incriminating evidence was found against
him. She completed the investigation, prepared the supplementary
chargesheet, and submitted it in court.
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 21 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
20.1. PW16 admitted in her cross-examination that in the
MLC, the name of one Najib is referred to but in the statement of
PW3, there was no mention of Najib, instead the name Zakir was
mentioned. PW16 admitted that she did not verify whether Najib
and Zakir (A4) are one and same person or different persons and
did not seek any clarification from the prosecutrix on that aspect.
According to PW16, her investigation did not reveal any clinching
evidence against Angesh. PW16 admitted that a crime has been
registered against Angesh based on the complaint of the father of
PW3 at Haridwar. She denied the suggestion that she falsely
implicated A4 in the case or that she obtained his signatures on
blank papers and had later manipulated them.
21. The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of
PW3. It is well settled that a conviction for an offence under
Section 375 IPC can be founded on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, if such testimony is of sterling quality. Where the
evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from material contradictions,
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 22 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
inconsistencies, or improvements going to the root of the
prosecution case, the Court is duty-bound to seek corroboration. To
test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would
be immaterial, and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of
the statement made by such a witness. What would be more
relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness
makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It
should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution
qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. Under no circumstances should there be
room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons
involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have
correlation with every one of the other supporting material such as
the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said
version should consistently match the version of every other
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 23 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
witness. (Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC
21).
22. In Ext. PW3/A FIS, PW3 alleges that the incident had
taken place about seven days prior to her rescue. However, in her
deposition before the Court, she altered her version and deposed
that she had been wrongfully confined and sexually exploited for
nearly one year. Such a drastic variation cannot be treated as a
minor discrepancy. Further, PW3 did not attribute any clear or
specific role to A3 in Ext. PW3/A FIS. However, in her deposition
before the Court, PW3 alleged that A3 used to administer
injections, arrange for multiple men to sexually assault her, and
repeatedly committed rape upon her. These allegations surfaced for
the first time before the trial court and constitute material
improvements, rendering her testimony unsafe to rely upon
without corroboration. In Ext. PW3/A FIS, she states that she was
taken to the house of the accused and subjected to sexual assault
about seven days prior to her rescue. However, in her deposition
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 24 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
before the trial court, she alleged that she was confined for
approximately one year, and during this period, she was repeatedly
raped by multiple persons.
23. Ext. PW2/A MLC of PW3 records the history as narrated
by PW3 to the doctor. A perusal of the MLC reveals that PW3
stated she had left her house about one year earlier, had worked as
a maid for a brief period, and thereafter came into contact with one
Najib in Sangam Vihar, who took her to his house. Further, Najib
and A2 allegedly forced her to stay and A1 committed sexual
assault on her. The name of A3 does not find mention in the
medical history. It is true that non mention of the name(s) of an
accused or mention of some others in the MLC is not a ground to
disbelieve the prosecution case because the duty of the doctor is to
treat the patients brought before him and not to find out the details
of the persons involved in the crime. (Pattipati Venkaiah v. State
of A.P., (1985) 4 SCC 80) But in the case on hand, the entries
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 25 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
made in the MLC also assume importance in the light of the
inconsistent testimony of PW3.
24. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the
learned counsel appearing for PW3 vehemently argued that even if
PW3 is not a sterling witness, her version has been corroborated by
the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. The testimony of
PW12 and PW14 only establishes that PW3 was found inside a
bathroom and sought police assistance. Their evidence does not
corroborate the allegations of confinement, repeated sexual assault,
etc. as spoken to by PW3. It is true that PW12 and PW14 are
independent witnesses and there is nothing to disbelieve their
testimony. It appears that PW3 was in fact rescued by the police
from the house of the accused persons. But the reason for her
presence in the said house does not appear to be as deposed by
PW3.
25. Further, PW3 admitted in her cross-examination that she
was frequently taken outside the house. She was taken to a doctor,
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 26 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
was moved to other places, and that neighbouring houses were
situated close by. Despite these circumstances, she claimed that she
could neither escape nor raise an effective alarm for nearly one
year. She is also seen to have given birth, which even according to
her was during the period of confinement and abuse by the accused
persons. It is not clear as to whether the delivery was at home or at
any hospital. But the materials on record show that PW3 did have
several opportunities to go out as well as raise alarm. Therefore,
her case of wrongful confinement for the purpose of sexual assault
and abuse is doubtful.
26. There is also drastic change in the version of PW3 while
in the box. I have already referred to Ext. PW3/A FIS as well as
her testimony. In Ext. PW3/A, she has no case that Angesh with
whom she had eloped had raped her. Infact, her case in Ext.
PW3/A is that Angesh had abandoned her in a hotel room at
Saharanpur and that she had travelled to Delhi on her own. After
coming to Delhi she got acquainted with A4 who on the pretext of
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 27 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
taking her to his bhabhi’s house took her to the house of A1 to A3
where the sexual abuse ensued. But, PW3 in the box gives a clean
chit to A4. The trial court also acquitted A4. In Ext. PW3/A, A3 is
only alleged to have been present in the house when A1 repeatedly
raped her with the active assistance of his wife A2. But in the box
her case is that not only A1, but A3, Angesh and several other
persons had also raped her. As noticed earlier, PW3 admits that she
gave birth to a child, which was apparently after she reached Delhi
and before she was rescued by the police. She admits that she was
taken out several times and even to a doctor. It is difficult to
believe that in none of the instances including the time of her
delivery, she was unable to bring the abuse to the notice of any
person and that it was impossible for her to escape or raise alarm.
27. Hence in the aforesaid circumstances, it can only be held
that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt, and so they are entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 28 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
28. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgment is set aside and A1 and A3 are acquitted under Section
235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences charged against them. A1 and A3
shall be set at liberty and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
29. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
p’ma
CRL.A. 352/2017 & CRL.A. 887/2017 Page 29 of 29
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:25.02.2026
16:19:17
