Delhi High Court
Gulfam @ Imran vs Nct Delhi on 14 July, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 09.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 14.07.2026
+ CRL.A. 617/2018
GULFAM @ IMRAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Uma Shankar
and Mr. Harsh Nath Tiwari,
Advocates
versus
NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State
Mr. Shah Rukh Khan and Ms. Tanya
Verma, Advocates for Victim
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 read with 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the sole
accused in Sessions Case No. 145/2016 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Judge, North East District, Karkardooma
Court, Delhi, assails the judgement dated 07.03.2018 and order
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 1 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
on sentence dated 12.03.2018, as per which he has been convicted
and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the
PoCSO Act) and Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1872
(the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that on 28.08.2014 at 07:00
P.M., at Gali No. 2A, Shriram Colony, Delhi, the accused stalked
and sexually harassed PW2, a minor girl, aged 17 years. Hence,
as per the chargesheet/final report, the accused is alleged to have
committed the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 506
IPC, 8 and 12PoCSO Act.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIS/FIR of PW1 given on
29.08.2014, Crime no. 918/2014, Khajuri Khas Police Station,
i.e., Ext. PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1 Head Constable.
PW10, Assistant Sub Inspector, conducted investigation into the
crime and on completion of the same, filed the chargesheet/final
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 2 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
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 him, as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,
the trial court, vide order dated 08.05.2014, framed a Charge
under Sections12 of the PoCSO Act, 354D IPC and 506 (Part I)
IPC against the accused. The Charge was read over and explained
to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 11 were
examined and Ext. PW1/A-C, Ext. PW2/2-4, Ext. PW10/2-5, Ext.
PW3/1-3, PW3/1-3, Ext. PW4/1, Ext. PW4/A, Ext. PW5/D1, Ext.
PW6/1-5, Ext. PW7/1 and Ext. PW9/1 were marked in support of
the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 3 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those
circumstances and maintained his innocence. The accused
submitted that he has been falsely implicated at the behest of the
family of PW 2. The accused also submitted that on the day of the
incident, he approached PW2 to tell her not to contact Amir
because Amir’s family had come to know about PW2’s friendship
with Amir.
7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232
Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance
of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings,
unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have
resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See
Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 4 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-
compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to
him.
8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the
accused.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court,
vide the impugned judgement dated 07.03.2018 held the accused
guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 12 of the PoCSO
Act and 354D IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 12.03.2018,
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1
year and to fine of ₹30,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to
simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence
punishable under Section 12 of the PoCSO Act. In view of
Section 42 PoCSO Act, no separate sentence has been awarded
for the offence punishable under Section 354D IPC.
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 5 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
10. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and
circumstances of the case, is bad in law as the trial court has
failed to appreciate the materials on record and, therefore, liable
to be set aside. It was submitted that there are inconsistencies
between the testimonies of PW2 and PW5 and that there are
contradictions in the testimony of the PW5. It was also submitted
that the incident is not a case of stalking or sexual harassment
rather the accused was merely communicating a message to PW2
without any sexual intent on the date of the incident. Only if the
prosecution succeeds in establishing the foundational facts, the
presumption under Sections 29 and 30 PoCSO Act would be
attracted, which in this case has not been done. In support of the
arguments, reference was made to the dictums in State vs.
Subhash 2025:DHC:8911 and State vs. Anil 2019 SCC Online
Del 10995.
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 6 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
11. 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.
12. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgement warranting an interference by this Court.
14. I will first briefly refer to the oral and documentary
evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of the case. Ext.
PW2/1, the FIS/FIR of PW2, the minor victim, recorded a day
after the date of the incident, i.e., on 28.08.2014, reads thus: “On
the 28.08.2014, I was going to my school from my house at
around 7:00 A.M. When I reached Gali No. 2, A, C Block,
Shriram Colony, a boy (the accused) who belongs to our colony
itself, came on his motorcycle, stopped me, and said, “You do not
stop when I tell you to.” I ignored his words and kept walking.
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 7 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
While leaving, the boy from my colony, Gulfam, (the accused)
went away saying, “If you do not listen to what I say, I will throw
acid on you one day.” Gulfam had been following me daily for
about 3-4 days while I am on my way to school. Yesterday, a
settlement had also been reached regarding the matter, but today
he came again and threatened me.”
14.1. PW2, in her 164 statement marked as Ext.PW2/4
recorded on 30.08.2014, has stated thus: “When I go to school, a
boy (the accused) has been stalking me for the past 3-4 days. I did
not know him before. When I forbade him, he did not listen. The
day before yesterday, he came on a bike and was standing at the
corner of the street. I did not take the route I usually take to
school; instead, I turned into a street. When I crossed the street,
he was standing at the corner of that street. Wherever I was
going, he was following right behind me. I entered a dead-end
street, A-Block, Gali No. 2. I am not sure whether that street is a
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 8 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
dead-end or not. He parked his bike at the corner of the street and
came into the street. As I started to leave the street, he said,
“Stop, otherwise I will throw acid on you. When you return from
school, I will throw acid. When I screamed, two-three aunties
were sitting there. An uncle (PW5) came and started beating him.
He started threatening the uncle as well, saying that he would kill
him. I went to school. My mother came to pick me up from school.
Ammi had found out everything. Earlier, we had settled
everything at the police station, but while leaving the police
station, he threatened us again, saying that now he will definitely
throw acid on me. Then, the next morning, we initiated the legal
proceedings again. I feel that if he is released, I will not be safe.”
14.2. PW2, when examined before the trial court more
or less stood by the version given by her in Ext. PW1/A FIS/FIR
and Ext.PW2/4 Section 164 Statement. PW2 deposed that at the
time of incident, she was studying in Class 12. She deposed that 2
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 9 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
to 3 days before the date of the incident, whenever she was on her
way to the school, the accused used to follow her. On 28.08.2014
at around 06:45-07:00 A.M., while on her way to school, she
changed her usual route, but the accused kept following her. So in
order to avoid the accused, she entered a narrow street. An uncle
(PW5) was watching all this. The said uncle (PW5) caught hold
of the accused and slapped him while she proceeded to her
school. While she was in school, her mother came and picked her
up from the school and they both went to Khajuri Khas police
station where they reached about 09:30 A.M. She narrated the
incident to one policeman. At that time, the accused and PW5
were also present. She came to know the name of the accused to
be Gulfam or Imran. On the said day, the matter was sorted out by
the elders, the details of which she is unaware. She then returned
home. The next day while on her way to school, the accused met
her again and told her that he would throw acid on her. The
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 10 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
accused thereafter left immediately and she proceeded to school.
When returned from school, she narrated the incident to her
mother. Thereafter she along with her mother went to a police
station where they met a senior officer who ordered action to be
taken. PW2 further deposed that the accused was brought to the
police station and beaten.
14.3. PW2 in her cross-examination, admitted that the
sister of the accused was her classmate and that the accused is a
friend of Amir. She further deposed that Amir though resides in
front of her house, she is not acquainted with him. She denied the
suggestion that Amir was her friend and that they used to
communicate through mobile phone. She denied the suggestion
that the accused had approached her only for telling her that she
should not contact Amir as his parents had come to know of her
friendship with Amir. The accused had been following her for 2 to
3 days before 28.08.2014. She admitted that she had not informed
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 11 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
anyone about the incident, however her friend Gulistan knew
about it.
15. PW5, when examined, deposed that on the date of the
incident at 07:00 A.M., when he was standing outside his
residence, he saw the accused had caught hold of PW 2. The
accused was trying to assault her and the girl looked quite scared.
On hearing the commotion, he approached them and tried to
release PW2 from the accused. When he attempted to intervene,
the accused threatened him by saying – “tere ko bhi dekh
loonga”. PW2 told him that the accused was threatening to throw
acid on her and had been following her for a long time. He saved
the girl from the accused, pursuant to which the girl went to her
school. In the meantime, the accused started to scuffle with him.
At this time, a passerby arrived and with the help of the said
passerby, he took the accused to the police station and handed the
custody of the accused to the duty officer. At the police station
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 12 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
also the accused abused and threatened him thus – “tujhe nahi
chhodoonga”. PW5 stood by his version in the cross-
examination.
16. The trial court has found the accused guilty of the
commission of the offence of sexual harassment as contemplated
under Section 11 of the PoCSO Act, punishable under Section 12
of the said Act and Section 354D IPC. Section 354D IPC
contemplates the offence of stalking. The essential ingredients
are: (i) the accused must follow or contact a woman repeatedly;
(ii) such contact must be despite a clear indication of disinterest
by the woman; or (iii) the accused monitors her use of the internet
or electronic communication. Section 11 of the PoCSO Act deals
with the offence of sexual harassment. Going by the prosecution
case, the offence committed comes under Clause (iv) of Section
11, which says that if a person with sexual intent repeatedly or
constantly follows or watches a child directly or through
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 13 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
electronic, digital or other means, commits the offence of sexual
harassment.
17. The prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony
of PW2, the victim, and PW5, an eyewitness. The testimony of
PW2 is clear, cogent, natural and consistent. She has described
the sequence of events leading up to the incident, the act itself,
including her immediate reaction thereafter. In a nutshell, she
stood by her case from her first version in the FIR/FIS to her
testimony before the trial court. It is a settled position of law that
conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if it is
of sterling quality, and the same does not require any
corroboration (See Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573). In the
present case, nothing has been elicited to discredit PW2, during
her cross examination. The testimony of PW5 further
corroborates her version.
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 14 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
18. The attempt of the learned counsel for the
appellant/accused was to highlight the inconsistencies in the
testimonies of PW2 and PW5, specifically with respect to the
testimony of PW5 that the accused had physically restrained
PW2. However, PW2 has no such case. Therefore, referring to
this inconsistency, the argument advanced is that this is a major
inconsistency which has adversely affected the prosecution case.
19. The question is whether the aforesaid inconsistency
alleged between the statements of PW2 and PW5 is a ground to
disbelieve the case of the prosecution. As is evident from a
reading of Ext.PW2/1 FIS/FIR, Ext.PW2/4 164 statement and the
testimony of PW2, she has been consistent regarding the case that
the accused had been repeatedly following her. She had tried
avoiding him and had even changed her route to the school so as
not to cross path with him. But, the accused still persisted with his
act of following her despite her clear indication of disinterest. It is
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 15 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
well settled that there is no requirement of corroboration if the
testimony of a child witness inspires confidence; such testimony
can form the sole basis of conviction. Corroboration may be
sought as a matter of prudence where the evidence appears to be
tutored or suffers from material contradictions. The competency
of a child witness depends on the satisfaction of the court as to
the child’s understanding and ability to depose. Though courts
must remain alive to the possibility of tutoring, there is no bar in
law to base conviction solely on the testimony of a child witness
who withstands cross-examination. (State of Rajasthan v.
Chatra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 566).
20. PW2 has withstood the cross-examination and nothing
was brought out to discredit her testimony. Therefore, the
ingredient contemplated under Clause (i) of Section 354D IPC
stands satisfied. The attempt of the defence is to bring the conduct
of the accused within the ambit of Clause (iii) to the proviso to
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 16 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
Section 354D IPC. As per the said clause, the conduct of the
accused coming under Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section
354D would not amount to stalking if the man who pursues
proves that in the particular circumstances, such conduct was
reasonable and justified. The explanation of the accused in
approaching PW2 is supposed to be to warn PW2 from keeping
away from his friend Amir. Apart from a mere suggestions put to
PW2, there is no material to prove such defence. It is true that in a
criminal case, the accused has the right to remain silent. However,
if he takes up a specific defence then the onus would be on him to
establish the same, though the degree of proof required is only on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities. (See Harbhajan
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97; V.D. Jhingan v.
State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1762; and Munshi Ram v. Delhi
Administration, AIR 1968 SC 702). The accused is neither the
parent nor guardian of the said Amir. The accused has no case that
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 17 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
Amir had asked him to approach PW2 and forbade her from
contacting the latter. Therefore, there are no cogent materials to
substantiate the contention of the accused that his conduct in the
circumstances was just and reasonable. That being the position,
the ingredients contemplated under Section 354D(1) IPC stands
fully established despite the inconsistency pointed out between
the testimony of PW2 and PW5.
21. Now coming to the offence punishable under Section
11 of the PoCSO Act. As noticed earlier, the prosecution has to
prove that the conduct of the accused in repeatedly or constantly
following the victim should be with sexual intent. The sexual
intent can be established only by the conduct of the accused.
What was the reason for the accused, a male aged about 18 years,
to repeatedly following a young girl aged 17 years, despite the
latter showing a clear disinterest in him. The explanation
furnished by the accused has been disbelieved for the reasons
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 18 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
aforesaid. Hence, the conduct of the accused in approaching PW2
could only have been with sexual intent. Even assuming for
argument sake, the sexual intent is not established, the offence
under Section 354D IPC is clearly made out.
22. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the
accused that there is a material contradiction between the 161
Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 and his testimony before the court.
PW5 in his 161 statement stated that he took the accused directly
to police station but in his testimony, PW5 deposed regarding
taking help of another passerby to take the accused to the police
station. The statements made under Section 161 are statements
made to the police during the course of investigation and the
same cannot be used except for the purpose stated in the proviso
to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. Under the proviso to Section 162 (1)
Cr.P.C., such statements can be used only for the purpose of
contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner indicated in
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 19 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
Section 145 of the Evidence Act and for no other purpose. They
cannot be used for the purpose of seeking corroboration or
assurance for the testimony of the witness in Court. (See
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012; Satpal v.
Delhi Administration, 1976 (1) SCC 727 and Delhi
Administration. v. Lakshman Kumar 1985 KHC 741: (1985) 4
SCC 476).
23. In the case on hand, the procedure contemplated under
Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was never resorted to and
hence the defence cannot take advantage of the same. As noticed
earlier, I do not find any reason(s) to reject or discard the
testimony of PW2. The offences are clearly established from her
testimony which has not been discredited in any way. A reading
of the testimony of PW5 also does not raise any doubts in the
mind of the Court. There is no reason(s) whatsoever for PW5 to
have falsely deposed against the accused. Even if for argument
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 20 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
sake, the testimony of PW5 is ignored, there is still the testimony
of PW2 to establish the offences charged against the accused. In
such circumstances, the finding of guilt of the accused by the trial
court for the offences punishable Section 12 of the PoCSO Act
and Section 354D IPC suffers from no infirmity calling for an
interference by this Court.
24. The appeal, sans merit, is thus dismissed.
25. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
JULY 14, 2026
kd
CRL.A. 617/2018 Page 21 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.07.2026
14:13:59
