Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State on 20 May, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of reserving: 14th May 2026.
Date of Decision: 20th May 2026.
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 703/2008
MANOJ KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunita Arora, Adv. (DHCLSC)
with Appellant-in-person.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State
with Ms. Kalpana Jha and Mr.
Siddharth Shankar Jha, Advs.
Ms. Megha Singh, Advocate for
prosecutrix.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. A routine early morning visit to the fields to bring fodder for the cattle
proved nightmarish to the victim, inasmuch as while she was coming back
with her fodder, she was waylaid by the Appellant on the morning of 10th
September 2001 and sought sexual favours from her. The refusal of the
victim was not taken by the Appellant in right spirit and he forcibly dragged
her into the crop of ‘Jowar’ and attempted to rape her. However, the victim
was fortunate enough that she despite being cornered in a ‘Jowar’ field,
assaulted by tooth bites and slaps etc., could save herself as a labourer /
neighbour appeared on the scene, which dissuaded and deterred the
Appellant, who ran away leaving the victim. The victim came back home
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 1 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
and narrated the incident to one of the cousins of her husband namely, Neel
Daman in the presence of her mother-in-law. The matter was reported to the
police and that resulted into registration of FIR No. 330/2001 (Ex.PW-8/A)
at Police Station Narela Industrial Area, under Section 354/506/324 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘). After recording of the statement, victim
was taken to the hospital and her medical examination was carried out.
Apart from the aforesaid, the other relevant aspects of the investigation were
also initiated and the same culminated into the shape of a chargesheet filed
under Sections 324/354/506/376/511 IPC against the Appellant. The trial
ultimately fructified in the conviction of the Appellant and he was sentenced
too.
2. Through the impugned Judgment dated 11.08.2008 and Order on
Sentence dated 13.08.2008, the Appellant was held guilty for offences
punishable under Section 324/354/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo:-
(a) For the offence under Section 324 IPC, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 1½ years with a fine of Rs.500/-,
in default of payment of fine, he had to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of one week.
(b) For the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 1½ year and to pay a fine of Rs.
5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of two months.
(c) For the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.
500/, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of one week.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 2 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
3. Appellant impugns the judgment being not satisfied by the findings
and it is put forth on behalf of the Appellant that he has been falsely
implicated in the instant case due to a property dispute between the
Appellant and the brother-in-law of the victim. It is further submitted that
the initial complaint was merely an ‘assault’, however, subsequently Section
376 read with Section 511 IPC was added on the basis of allegations levelled
thereafter, which in itself is a testimony unto a fact that the Appellant has
been falsely implicated. Additionally, learned counsel for the Appellant
emphasized that it is the testimony of the victim examined as PW-2, which
alone is of utmost importance and it is laced with improvements, which
renders it vulnerable to doubt and suspicion. In addition to that, it is asserted
that in the absence of any corroboration to the testimony of the victim, there
is no reason as to why the Appellant should be held responsible / guilty.
4. To elaborate about the incidents of improvement, learned counsel for
the Appellant submitted that in the initial complaint Ex.PW2/A, on the basis
of which FIR (Ex.PW8/A) came into being, there is no reference of the
string of the lower garment (salwar) being broken by the Appellant, whereas,
during her cross-examination, victim had deposed about this fact out of blue.
In the initial statement Ex.PW2/A, there is a reference of a ‘labourer’, who
appeared at the scene which saved the victim from being assaulted. But in
her testimony before the Court, she did not mention anything about this fact,
rather introduces a ‘neighbour’, who too has not been specifically named. It
is thus, submitted that in the absence of any corroborative finding, the
evidence becomes shaky and the Appellant should not have been held guilty.
5. Another aspect which has been highlighted by learned counsel for the
Appellant is that though the victim was given beatings by her husband,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 3 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
nevertheless, the injuries as reflected in the MLC, do not indicate anywhere
that she was assaulted in the manner, she had deposed before the Trial Court.
The MLC initially reflects the marks of tooth-bites and for that matter the
victim had stated that she was bitten on her right arm, whereas, her brother-
in-law Neel Daman examined as PW-5, found bite marks on both the arms
of the victim. Apparently, it is irreconcilable and in turn shakes up the
foundation of the prosecution’s case.
6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, came up with the plea
that the testimony of the victim is above-board and has been corroborated by
PW-5 Neel Daman and the medical records. The narrative given by the
victim is in-tandem with the injuries, which have been mentioned in the
MLC. Incised wounds are reflective of the fact that it was the tooth-bite as
stated by the victim. She was dragged inside the field which has caused
abrasions on her body and the same finds mention in the MLC (Ex.PW1/A).
It is thus, submitted that there is nothing like improvement, which may
dislodge the prosecution’s case or the testimony of the victim.
7. The narrative of the victim about the kind of assault she had
undergone at the hands of Appellant echoes in the MLC. The details of
the injuries as given below would clarify it further that there were
abrasions on almost all over the body coupled with incised wounds and
blood stains. MLC (Ex.PW1/A) gives a detailed description of the
injuries sustained by the victim:-
(i) Injury No.1: – Swelling of size 4×3 cm over pt. upper arm
in lateral aspect & cuts in margin. Contusion [serrased].
(ii) Injury No.2:-Swelling & Contusion on posterior part of
Right upper arm size 5×4 cm (Contusion in periphery of the
swelling)Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 4 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
(iii) Injury No.3:-
(a) Abrasion ½ x ½ cm on Rt. elbow part. Region.
(b) Abrasion on left forearm portion lat. part size 1x ½ cm.
(iv) Injury No.4:- Abrasion & Redness on Anterior part of the
neck.
(v) Injury No.5:- Multiple small abrasion on left lower back.
(vi) Injury No.6:- Incised wound & blood stains on left 2nd
Tol in ventral aspect size 1cm in length.
All the above injuries strengthen the deposition of the victim
reflecting that she was dragged on a rough surface, as has been stated by
her in her deposition before the court.
8. The incident took place on 10.09.2001 at 7.45 am and the MLC was
prepared on the same day at about 11.55 am. Therefore, there is no scope for
any kind of manipulation therein.
9. As regards the so called improvement, there is a clarification in cross-
examination itself of PW-2, as to why and under what circumstances, it so
happened. She has stated that out of shame she did not disclose this fact of
her string / nada of salwar was broken by Appellant, which is perfectly
justifiable, given the fact that the incident took place in a village where
women still observe ‘parda‟ and this is an incident, which took place about a
quarter century back. One can easily visualize the position of the female folk
and their conduct, social norms, fear of ostracization and social stigma etc.
attached with and kind of offence. It require some courage to report such like
matters even today, what to talk about 25 years back.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 5 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
10. Similarly, ‘neighbour’ or ‘labour’ are similar sounding words
therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the victim stated about the
neighbour whereas it was recorded as ‘labour’ in her statement recorded by
the IO. In any case, what is important is that the victim could save herself as
somebody appeared in the vicinity of the ‘Jowar‟ field. It is not reflected
from the testimony about the identity of the person who surfaced there near
the spot nor probably he came to know about the goings on. Just appearance
and presence suddenly had deterred the Appellant from his proposed act
inasmuch as he had categorically mentioned about the intentions to the
victim as can be seen in her testimony. Relevant portion of her Examination-
in-chief is reproduced here under:
“I tried to rescue myself and pushed the accused. The accused gave
me teeth bite on my right arm and on my asking what he wants from
me, he told me that he wants to committed rape with me.”
11. Then, the so called improvements about the incident of 7.45 am being
informed to the police at 9:44 a.m. through DD No.6A and FIR getting
registered at 3:30 p.m. are inconsequential, so far as the case of prosecution
is concerned and has been rightly be ignored. The reason is simple, the
matter was reported to police within reasonable time, but what police did is
up to the police. Victim had no control over it and she cannot held
responsible in any manner. Similarly, there may be some variation in giving
time in deposition but nobody keeps track of minute to minute development.
As such, no adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution.
12. Father of Appellant was examined as DW-1 primarily on two counts
i.e. ‘Plea of Alibi‟ attempted to be put forth on behalf of Appellant inasmuch
as father of Appellant, has deposed that at the relevant time of the alleged
incident, the Appellant was with him watching TV in the morning till noon.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 6 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
It is only in the afternoon when police official of PS Narela came to inquire
about the Appellant and took him away. He later on came to know about the
arrest of the Appellant. He further stated that he had sold some land to Neel
Daman and that there was some dispute about the payment and the adjoining
land etc. Neel Daman wanted to purchase some part of the land, to which
father of Appellant did not agree and that grudge was being nursed by Neel
Daman which shaped up in the instant case.
13. The testimony of DW-1 is no use / help on two counts. Firstly, father
of Appellant did not prove the documents to show that some land was sold
to Neel Daman (PW-5), which he could have done easily to substantiate his
version and could have given strength to his testimony and insight to the
case, but in the absence of the same, oral testimony cannot be given any
weightage. Secondly, testimony of father of Appellant recorded as DW-1 is
incomplete, therefore the same cannot be read in evidence inasmuch as, his
cross-examination was deferred and this witness was not offered for cross-
examination, which effaces the testimony from record.
14. From the evidence, what emerges on record is that the Appellant who
was about 21 years of age at the time of incident tried to take advantage of
the victim as she was found alone in an isolated place by him. He not only
grabbed her but expressed his desire to the victim, who rebuked him.
However, in the circumstances, in which the victim was placed, Appellant
was able to drag the victim in the field of ‘Jowar’ and enraged by the
resistance put forth by victim, he assaulted her by biting her on her arms and
otherwise assaulting her. However, he could not fully overpower the victim
and as an individual surfaced out of nowhere in the vicinity which was an
isolated place. This trepidated the Appellant and he retreated from his evil
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 7 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
intentions apprehending that the otherwise helpless victim may raise hue and
cry which would land the Appellant in a messy situation therefore he thought
it fit to escape from the spot after threatening the victim of dire
consequences and harm, not only the victim, but her family members also.
15. So far as the narrative of the victim is concerned, it is believable
specially when corroboration comes in the shape of injuries sustained by her
as enumerated in the MLC Ex.PW1/A. It is a settled law that testimony of
the victim alone would be sufficient to nail down in the sexual offence,
provided the testimony is impeccable and is above board and can be termed
as of sterling quality. Reference can be made to the judgement titled as in
Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as under:
“10.1. Whether, in the case involving sexual harassment,
molestation, etc., can there be conviction on the sole evidence of the
prosecutrix, in Vijay [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC
191:(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 639], it is observed in paras 9 to 14 as
under:
“9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain,
(1990) 1 SCC 550:1990 SCC (Cri) 210] this Court held that a
woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice
to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and, therefore,
her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion
as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under:
„16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par
with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The
Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be
accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars.
She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118
and her evidence must receive the same weight as is
attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The
same degree of care and caution must attach in the
evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured
complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is
that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that
it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interestedSignature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 8 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court
keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the
evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or
practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to
Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for
corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to
place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it
may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her
testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend
assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full
understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on
her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not
trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on
the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not
have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged,
the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting
her evidence.‟
10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu [State of U.P. v. Pappu, (2005) 3
SCC 594 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 780] this Court held that even in a
case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl
habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to
absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be
established that there was consent by her for that particular
occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor
that leads the court to absolve the accused. This Court further
held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix and in case, the court is not satisfied with the version
of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or
circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony.
The Court held as under:
„12. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of
having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an
accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her
testimony cannot be acted upon without corroboration in
material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an
injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the
physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well
as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of
facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix
on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or
circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 9 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood
in the context of an accomplice, would do.‟
11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit
Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] , this Court held
that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation, etc. the
court is duty-bound to deal with such cases with utmost
sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in
the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for
throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of
the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does
not require any corroboration unless there are compelling
reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some
assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The
statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an
injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further
held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be
even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot
be given any benefit thereof. The Court observed as under:
„8. … The court overlooked the situation in which a poor
helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of
three desperate young men who were threatening her and
preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the
investigating officer did not conduct the investigation
properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the
driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit
the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no
control over the investigating agency and the negligence of
an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the
statement of the prosecutrix. … The courts must, while
evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case
of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a
court just to make a humiliating statement against her
honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her.
In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed
considerations which have no material effect on the veracity
of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the
statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the
discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed
to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. …
Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon
the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult
to injury. … Corroboration as a condition for judicial
reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not aSignature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 10 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given
circumstances. …
***
21. … The courts should examine the broader probabilities
of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or
insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the
prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an
otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the
prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon
without seeking corroboration of her statement in material
particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to
place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short
of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The
testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the
background of the entire case and the trial court must be
alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with
cases involving sexual molestations.‟
(emphasis in original)
12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra [State of
Orissa v. Thakara Besra, (2002) 9 SCC 86 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
1080] , this Court held that rape is not mere physical assault,
rather it often distracts (sic destroys) the whole personality of the
victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female
and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be
appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such
cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a
serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the
witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence.
13. In State of H.P. v. Raghubir Singh [State of H.P. v. Raghubir
Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 622 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 674] this Court held
that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to
corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an
order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted.
Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is
absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity.
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid
Khan v. State of M.P. [Wahid Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2
SCC 9 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1208] placing reliance on an earlier
judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan[Rameshwar v. State
of Rajasthan, 1951 SCC 1213 : AIR 1952 SC 54] .
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 11 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the
statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and
reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the
accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.”
10.2. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [Krishan Kumar
Malik v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
61] , it is observed and held by this Court that to hold an accused
guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of
the prosecutrix is sufficient, provided the same inspires confidence
and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should
be of sterling quality.”
16. In such an eventuality, even corroboration is not required, whereas in
the instant case not only the testimony of the victim is above board and is of
sterling quality, rather the same finds corroboration too in the shape of the
injuries sustained by her in the assault as per the MLC Ex.PW1/A. The
narrative goes hand in hand with the injuries sustained by the victim,
therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution and in this
process the impugned Judgment is able to pass through the scrutiny of the
truthfulness and credibility.
17. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 324/354/506 IPC
whereas he has been given clean chit so far as the offence under Section
376/511 IPC is concerned. The State has not preferred any appeal nor there
is any counter arguments on this aspect of Section 376/511 IPC.
18. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in her concluding lines submitted
that the Appellant has undergone 02 Months 21 Days period out of the
punishment awarded to him. He was a young man of 21 years of age when
the alleged incident took place and is now a married man and having
children and family responsibilities at the age of 47 years. Therefore, it is
sought that this aspect may be taken into account while considering the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 12 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
matter if the appeal does not find favour of the Court. Expectedly, the
learned APP sought a commensurate sentence for the Appellant without
giving him any indulgence about his age at the time of incident and the
present age and the responsibilities and sought that the sentence awarded to
him should not be disturbed and certainly he should not be released against
the period of custody spend by him during the trial and the post-conviction.
19. Having considered the submissions made by the contesting sides, it is
apparent that the Appellant is unable to carve out the case in his favour so
that any interference is made in the Impugned Judgment. The evidence on
record coming from the mouth of the victim in itself is sufficient to nail him
down and in any case there is sufficient corroboration which go hand in hand
with the overall narrative. The deposition of the witness coupled with the
injuries sustained by her as reflected in the MLC are sufficient to bind the
Appellant with the offence, notwithstanding the defence witness brought by
him, which is unable to dislodge the prosecution’s case. As a result, the
appeal in respect of Impugned Judgement dated 11.08.2008 stands
dismissed.
20. The misdeed of the Appellant overlap in two segments i.e. Section
354 IPC and 376/511 IPC. However, the learned Trial Court has not found
him guilty under Section 376/511 IPC. The state has also not challenged the
finding. Therefore, in these circumstances, it does not seems to be
appropriate to dwell on this aspect especially when the
Appellant has not been put on notice although the acts of the Appellant are
on the border, if not in the realm of the offence of attempt to commit rape.
There is a grey area in between and in the fitness of circumstances where
there is no challenge to the findings by the prosecution on this count,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 13 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
therefore, the same is not looked into. As a result, the appeal has been
dismissed and the judgement of conviction is affirmed.
21. As regards the period of sentence awarded to him which is 1½ years
for Section 324 IPC 1½ years for Section 354 IPC and 06 months for Section
506 IPC together with different amount of fine and further punishment in
default of payment of fine as enumerated in the instant judgment. The
Appellant has spent 02 Months 21 Days in custody prior to the Appellate
stage.
22. Considering the matter in its entirety, especially the fact that the
Appellant was barely out of teenage when the incident took place and he is
now going about to complete 50th year of his life. When the offence was, he
was on the rise whereas now he is on the decline of his age and has faced
trial / criminal proceedings for quarter a century. This period has been
trouble free and no adverse report is there, which gives reasons for some
indulgence on the aspect of sentence. He has according to the Nominal Roll
dated 18.11.2025, spent 02 Months 21 Days in custody which does not
seems to be sufficient notwithstanding the contention on behalf of the
Appellant that the period of custody already undergone by him should be
considered the punishment. Thus, taking into account the entire gamut of
facts and circumstances, the sentence of the Appellant, as awarded by the
learned Trial Court is reduced to six months each qua Section 324, 354 and
506 IPC, whereas the fine remains unaltered together with its punishment for
default in payment of fine. The Appellant has to surrender forthwith to
undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
23. Appeal thus, partially succeeds on the aspect of sentence and stands
disposed-of accordingly.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 14 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
24. It is clarified that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the
Appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
25. Copy of the judgement be transmitted to the learned Trial Court and
the prison authorities for information and necessary compliance.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
MAY 20, 2026/bj/tng
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 703/2008 Manoj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Page 15 of 15
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:21.05.2026
16:30:51
