Delhi High Court
Karan vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 17 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 15.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 17.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 1270/2025, CRL.M.A. 27136/2025 &
CRL.M.(BAIL) 1897/2025
KARAN .....Appellant
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr.
Vishruti Chauhan & Mr. Bhanu Pant, Advs.
For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State.
SI Pravesh, PS Mundka.
Ms. Supriya Juneja, Adv. for R-2/ victim.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 415 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) against final order and
judgment dated 09.07.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and order
of sentencing dated 30.07.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 1 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
sentence’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO)-
6, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (‘ASJ’) in S.C. No. 80/2021.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ convicted the
appellant for the offences under Sections 342/363/365/376AB/506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘) and Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act‘). By the
impugned order on sentence, the learned ASJ sentenced the appellant to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 342
of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year and to pay a
fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 363
of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for the period of 2 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.2000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 365
of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for the period of 1 year and to pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the commission of the offence under Section 506
of the IPC. All of the above sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The FIR was registered on a complaint given by the victim. The
victim, aged 13 years and the appellant lived in the same neighborhood.
It is alleged that the appellant would repeatedly try to talk to the victim
and invite her to his room. It is alleged that the appellant would profess
his love to the victim and ask her to marry him, despite the victim
refusing for the same. It is alleged that on 08.12.2020, around 11:30 pm,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 2 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
when the victim went to use the washroom, the appellant came from
behind the victim, gagged her mouth and took her to his room. It is
alleged that the appellant forcefully established physical relations with
the victim and held the mouth of the victim shut to the extent that she
lost consciousness. It is alleged that when the victim regained
consciousness, she had no clothes on and her body was paining. It is
alleged that at that time, the parents of the victim were looking for her
and upon hearing their voice, the appellant hid the victim in a closet. It
is alleged that the appellant threatened the victim that if she disclosed
the incident to anyone, he would kill her. It is alleged that thereafter, the
appellant ran away from the spot. It is alleged that the victim’s parents
opened the said closet, got the victim out, took her to the hospital and
called the police.
4. Charges were framed against the appellant for the offences under
Sections 363/365/376AB/342/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(‘IPC‘) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’) to which the appellant pleaded not
guilty and claimed Trial.
5. The learned ASJ convicted the appellant for the offences under
Sections 342/363/365/376AB/506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the
POCSO Act vide judgment dated 09.07.2025. The learned ASJ noted
that the victim testified that on the day of the alleged incident, around
11pm she was going to use the washroom situated just outside her house,
when the appellant came from behind and put a handkerchief on her
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 3 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
face, thereafter she became unconscious and the appellant took her to
his room. It was noted that this version of the victim has been
corroborated with her statement recorded under Section 164 of the
CrPC, where a more or less similar statement was given by the victim,
establishing how the appellant kidnapped the victim.
6. It was noted that the victim also testified in her deposition that her
paternal aunts had rescued her from the closet of the appellant
whereafter she was taken to the hospital. It was noted that this version
of the victim was also corroborated with her statement recorded under
Section 164 of the CrPC wherein similar facts were stated by the victim.
It was noted that the aforesaid statements being more or less similar
show how the appellant confined the victim in a closet and she was later
on recovered from the house of the appellant in the presence of her
paternal aunts.
7. It was noted that the victim deposed in her examination-in-chief
that the appellant took her to his room where he established ‘sharirik
sambandh’ with her, during which he held her mouth shut due to which
she lost consciousness. It was noted that the victim also elaborated that
by ‘sharirik sambandh’ she means that ‘karan ne apna susu wala hissa
mere susu wale hisse mein daala’.
8. It was noted that the victim has categorically deposed in her
examination-in-chief that ‘Karan ne mujhe ek almirah me choopa rakha
tha, aur mujhe dhamki diya tha ki kisi ko batayegi toh jaan se maar
dunga’. It was noted that at the time of commission of offence, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 4 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
victim was a young girl at the mercy of the appellant and there can be
no doubt that the threat extended by the appellant had caused alarm to
her.
9. It was noted that the defence raised by the appellant regarding
false implication was completely vacuous, as the appellant did not
examine any witnesses or produce any documentary evidence to
substantiate the alleged quarrel between his family and the family of the
victim.
10. It was noted that the victim remained quite consistent in her
statements and categorically described the commission of the crime
against her by the accused, additionally the victim also correctly
identified the appellant before the court. It was noted that there are only
minor embellishments in the statements of the victim, which do not go
to the root of the present case and are not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. It was further noted that the statements of the victim
instilled the required confidence of the court in order to prove the guilt
of the accused and her testimony could be considered as of sterling
quality.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned
judgement is contrary to the facts as well as law involved in the present
case and is therefore liable to be set aside.
12. He submitted that the allegations made by the victim against the
appellant are vague, general and sweeping in nature. He submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 5 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
it is a settled legal proposition that conviction in sexual assault cases can
be sustained solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim only if it
inspires confidence and when the same is of sterling quality and
unblemished in nature.
13. He submitted that in the present case, the victim’s testimony is
full of inconsistencies, contradictions and improvements on material
aspects of the present case.
14. He submitted that the MLC dated 09.12.2020 records that the
victim was unable to recall the incident and that the victim was
unconscious at the time of the alleged incident. He submitted that the
appellant was not named in the MLC and no allegation of penetrative
sexual assault was made by the victim in the MLC. He submitted that
despite the MLC recording that the victim was unconscious at the time
of the alleged incident and did not remember anything, the victim has
alleged that the appellant established “sharirik sambandh” with her in
her complaint to the police. He submitted that the victim, in her
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘), once again stated that she became
unconscious after her mouth was pressed by the appellant and has
specifically disclosed that she did not remember what happened after
she became unconscious. He submitted that the victim in her
examination in chief also made no allegations of penetrative sexual
assault upon the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 6 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
15. He submitted that the victim made material improvements upon
the MLC in her complaint by alleging that when she regained
consciousness post the alleged incident, she had no clothes on, while the
same was never deposed by the victim in her MLC. He submitted that
thereafter, the victim again made no allegations of waking up without
clothes after the alleged incident in her statement under Section 164 of
the CrPC.
16. He submitted that the victim alleged that she felt sharp pain in
her body after the alleged incident in her complaint to the police,
however, the victim failed to depose the same at the time of her MLC,
moreover, the MLC records that no injuries were found upon the victim.
17. He submitted that the testimony of the victim has been
inconsistent regarding the factum of who rescued her from the
appellant’s closet. He submitted that in the MLC, the victim has
attributed her rescue to her paternal aunts, however, in her complaint to
the police she attributed her rescue to her parents. He submitted that the
victim once again diverted from her earlier statements and attributed her
rescue to her paternal aunts and not her parents in her statement under
Section 164 of the CrPC. He submitted that the aforesaid statement of
the victim has been contradicted by the statements of her mother (PW-
2) and father (PW-3), who have deposed that they had rescued the victim
from the appellant’s closet.
18. He submitted that the victim introduced material improvements
in her complaint to the police dated 09.12.2020. He submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 7 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
victim made allegations against the accused of “chedkhani” and forceful
marriage proposals for the first time in her complaint. He submitted that
thereafter, the victim in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC,
made no allegations of any “chedkani” or marriage proposal against the
appellant.
19. He submitted that the Emergency Response System (‘ERS’)
record notes that the first emergency call was received on 09.12.2020 at
1:12 am, pursuant to which HC Krishan reached the spot at 1:28 am. He
submitted that HC Krishan, who was the first responder to the place of
the alleged incident has not been examined. He submitted that it has been
merely noted in the ERS that the victim and appellant were neighbors
and friends, and that the victim had gone to the house of the appellant
where the parents of the victim arrived and took the victim in an
ambulance while the appellant was taken to the Police Station. He
submitted that no allegation of sexual assault, nudity or unconsciousness
has been made in the ERS.
20. He submitted that though the ERS document forms part of the
charge sheet, the same was never exhibited during the trial without any
explanation, attracting an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
21. He submitted that though the victim has deposed that the appellant
ran away after the incident, the ERS record shows that the appellant was
present at the spot and was taken to the police station.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 8 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
22. He submitted that the arrest memo records that the appellant was
arrested at 10:50 am, on 09.12.2020, the ERS record shows that the
appellant was taken to the police station at 1:28 am. He submitted that
such contradictory timelines expose serious manipulation and unfairness
in the investigation.
23. He submitted that the PW-2/ mother of the victim, deposed that
the victim regained consciousness in the hospital, which is contradictory
to the ERS record and the MLC, both of which record that the victim
was conscious throughout. He submitted that PW-2 made no allegation
of the victim being found without clothes after the alleged incident.
24. He submitted that the FSL report, admittedly favors the accused
and the same has been recorded by the learned Trial Court itself. He
submitted that in the absence of any medical corroboration, conviction
based on the inconsistent testimony of the victim is unsustainable.
25. He submitted that the paternal aunts of the victim, who are the
alleged rescuers of the victim have not been examined by the
prosecution.
26. He submitted that the alleged incident took place in a crowded
and densely populated area, yet no alarm was raised by the victim when
the appellant allegedly grabbed her.
27. He submitted that PW-3/ father of the prosecutrix has admitted
that there was acrimony between the families of the victim and the
appellant just before the incident. He submitted that this admission
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 9 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
strongly supports the defence plea of false implication due to prior
acrimony taken by the appellant before the learned Trial Court.
28. He submitted that PW-3 deposed that many persons from the
neighbourhood had joined PW-2 & 3 while they were searching for the
victim, however, no independent witness has been examined by the
prosecution to prove the rescue of the victim from the closet of the
appellant.
29. He submitted that the learned Public Prosecutor was permitted to
put leading questions to the victim beyond the scope of Section 142 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, thereby filling the lacunae in the case of
the prosecution. He submitted that this approach vitiates the concept of
a fair trial.
30. He submitted that the offence under Section 506 is not proved
against the appellant in the present case as the allegation against the
appellant of threatening the victim arose for the first time in the
complaint to the police and the same is conspicuously absent from the
victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. Moreover, the MLC
records that the victim was unconscious at the time of the alleged
incident and hence, the question of the appellant threatening her does
not arise.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 10 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
31. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned amicus
curiae appointed to address arguments on behalf of the victim submitted
that the impugned judgment is reasoned and warrants no interference.
32. They submitted that there is a reverse presumption under Section
29 of the POCSO Act against the appellant. They submitted that the
appellant has failed to rebut the said presumption and the learned Trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
33. They submitted that the appellant failed to cite any defence
witnesses during the course of trial and merely raised the defence that
he was falsely implicated in the present case due to prior enmity with
the family of the victim.
Analysis
34. At the outset, it is relevant to note that while dealing with an
appeal against judgment on conviction and sentence, in exercise of
Appellate Jurisdiction, this Court is required to reappreciate the
evidence in its entirety and apply its mind independently to the material
on record. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jogi & Ors. v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh : Criminal Appeal No. 1350/2021 had
considered the scope of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction under
Section 374 of the CrPC and held as under:
“9. The High Court was dealing with a substantive appeal under the
provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court was
required to evaluate the evidence on the record independently and to
arrive at its own findings as regards the culpability or otherwise of
the accused on the basis of the evidentiary material. As the judgment
of the High Court indicates, save and except for one sentence, which
has been extracted above, there has been virtually no independentSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 11 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
evaluation of the evidence on the record. While considering the
criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC, the High Court was
duty bound to consider the entirety of the evidence. The nature of the
jurisdiction has been dealt with in a judgment of this Court in Majjal
v State of Haryaya [(2013) 6 SCC 799] , where the Court held:
‘6. In this case what strikes us is the cryptic nature of the High
Court’s observations on the merits of the case. The High Court
has set out the facts in detail. It has mentioned the names and
numbers of the prosecution witnesses. Particulars of all
documents produced in the court along with their exhibit
numbers have been mentioned. Gist of the trial court’s
observations and findings are set out in a long paragraph.
Then there is a reference to the arguments advanced by the
counsel. Thereafter, without any proper analysis of the
evidence almost in a summary way the High Court has
dismissed the appeal. The High Court’s cryptic reasoning is
contained in two short paragraphs. We find such disposal of a
criminal appeal by the High Court particularly in a case
involving charge under Section 302 IPC where the accused is
sentenced to life imprisonment unsatisfactory.
7. It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the
trial court’s assessment of the evidence and its opinion that the
appellant must be convicted deserve to be confirmed. This
exercise is necessary because the personal liberty of an
accused is curtailed because of the conviction. The High Court
must state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on
record. The High Court’s acceptable only if it is supported by
reasons. In such appeals it is a court of first appeal. Reasons
cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not mean that the High Court
is expected to write an unduly long treatise. The judgment may
be short but must reflect proper application of mind to vital
evidence and important submissions which go to the root of the
matter. Since this exercise is not conducted by the High Court,
the appeal deserves to be remanded for a fresh hearing after
setting aside the impugned order.’ ”
(emphasis supplied)
35. Criminal jurisprudence rests on the foundational principle that a
conviction cannot be founded upon mere surmises or conjectures. The
prosecution, therefore, bears the onerous burden of proving, through
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 12 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
cogent, reliable, and admissible evidence, every essential ingredient of
the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. This standard of proof is
not an empty formality; rather, it functions as a vital safeguard against
the possibility of wrongful conviction. Accordingly, where the
prosecution’s case is vitiated by material inconsistencies, contradictions,
or evidentiary deficiencies, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
36. Accordingly, a meticulous examination of the impugned
judgment as well as the material on record reveals that several material
aspects of the case were either summarily disregarded or addressed in
sweeping generalisations. The reasoning is general, not granular; broad,
but not precise. Notably, the same raises the most fundamental question
that lies at the heart of every criminal trial: Does the prosecution’s
evidence prove the case beyond reasonable doubt?
37. Before delving into the analysis of the material on record
threadbare, it is pertinent to mention that this Court is conscious of the
fact that the victim is a child and minor contradictions would not
adversely impact the matter. It is trite law that the accused can be
convicted solely on the basis of evidence of the victim as long as same
inspires confidence and corroboration is not necessary for the same.
However, when a victim’s testimony is marked by identified flaws or
gaps or provides an insufficient account of the incident, a conviction
cannot be sustained. [Ref: Nirmal Premkumar v. State : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 260].
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 13 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
38. In the present case, a perusal of the material on record indicates
that the case of the prosecution is marred with blemishes and fails to
establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
39. The learned ASJ convicted the appellant essentially solely on the
basis of the testimony of the victim noting that the testimony of the
victim apart from minor embellishments and inconsistencies was
consistent throughout, meeting the standards of a ‘sterling witness’.
40. One of the major grounds taken by the appellant to challenge the
impugned judgment is that the learned ASJ erred in concluding that the
testimony of the victim in the present case is of sterling quality. The
learned Trial Court brushed off various discrepancies in the testimony
of the victim in regard to the manner in which the alleged incident
occurred and the events that transpired post the commission of the
alleged offence as minor embellishments. Upon a scrupulous analysis of
the evidence in the present case, in the opinion of this Court, the same
has the effect of casting a serious doubt on the veracity of the case of the
prosecution. The same is summarized as follows:
41. First, in relation to the allegation of sexual assault against the
appellant, which goes to the very root of the matter. The victim/PW-1,
in her Examination in Chief, deposed that at the night of the alleged
incident, around 11:00 pm, when she went to use the washroom situated
just outside her house, the appellant came from behind and put a
handkerchief on her face, whereafter she turned unconscious and the
appellant took her to his room. She deposed that when she gained
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 14 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
consciousness, her whole body was hurting and she had scratches on her
hands and feet. Upon being asked a court question, the victim elaborated
that “mujhe aisa lag raha tha, ki Karan ne mere saath jabardasti galat
kaam kiya hai aur mere shareer ke neechle hisse mein kaafi dard ho
raha tha”.
42. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state was
allowed to ask leading questions to the victim, whereupon she affirmed
that the appellant took her to his room and forcefully established
“sharirik sambandh” with her. Thereupon, answering to a court
question, the victim clarified that by “sharirik sambandh”, she means
that “Karan ne apna susu-wala hissa mere susu-wale hisse mein daala”.
It is pertinent to atleast examine the testimony of the victim regarding
sexual assault committed upon her by the appellant with her earlier
statements, so as to determine whether they corroborate the same.
43. The MLC in the present case was recorded on 09.12.2020, at 3:30
am, which is just a few hours after the alleged incident. The victim in
her MLC stated that when she went to use the washroom on 09.12.2020
at approximately 12:00 am, someone came from behind, closed her
mouth and took her to his room. She further stated that she lost her
consciousness and did not remember anything. It is pertinent to note that
in the MLC, the victim did not name the accused and made no allegation
of sexual assault, instead claiming that she did not remember anything.
Importantly, no mention of any pain in her body or scratches on her arms
or legs have been noted in the MLC of the victim.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 15 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
44. The victim in her complaint to the police improved upon her
version in the MLC and alleged that around 11:30 pm, when she went
to use the washroom, the appellant came from behind, took her to his
room and established physical relations with her, whereafter she lost
consciousness. It is relevant to note, that the victim made allegations of
sexual assault upon the appellant for the first time in this complaint.
45. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the
CrPC stated that at the night of the alleged incident, when she went to
use the washroom, someone kept a handkerchief on her mouth and took
her to his room and when she tried to scream, pressed her mouth so
tightly that she lost consciousness. She further stated that “mere saath
kya hua us wakt mujhe kuch nahi pata”. It is pertinent to note that the
victim once again deviated from her allegation of sexual assault at this
stage stating that she does not know what happened as she was
unconscious. The victim at different stages has differed from her earlier
statements regarding the commission of sexual assault upon her by the
appellant, at some stages stating that she was unconscious and did not
remember anything and completely deviating at other stages alleging
sexual assault. The victim in her deposition introduces new facts
regarding pain and scratches on her body which led her to believe she
had been sexually assaulted, while in her MLC just a few hours after the
incident makes no mention of any pain or injuries. Furthermore, the
victim in her deposition has upon a court question explained what she
means by “sharirik sambandh”, which she alleges upon the appellant, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 16 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
is important to note that if the victim had turned unconscious as she had
stated in her earlier statements, she could not have known the same.
46. Second, in relation to the statement of the victim that when she
gained consciousness post the alleged incident, she had no clothes on.
The victim in her Examination in Chief deposed that when she regained
consciousness after the alleged act, she found herself in the room of the
appellant, completely nude. It is pertinent to note that the victim failed
to mention the said fact in her MLC and her statement under Section 164
of the CrPC. Additionally, the mother (PW-2) and father (PW-3) of the
victim deposed that they found the victim in the closet of the appellant,
however, failed to make any mention of the victim being nude at the
time of her rescue.
47. Third, in relation to the rescue of the victim from the room of the
appellant. Pertinently, the statement of the victim has been inconsistent
throughout pertaining to who rescued her from the appellant’s closet.
The victim in her examination in chief and her statement under Section
164 of the CrPC deposed that her paternal aunts rescued her from the
closet in the appellant’s room, where he had hidden her. However, the
victim in her complaint to the police attributed her rescue to her parents.
Additionally, the parents of the victim made no mention of her paternal
aunts rescuing her, instead stating that they had themselves found the
victim. It is pertinent to note that the paternal aunts of the victim have
not been made witnesses by the prosecution, further raising doubt upon
the rescue of the victim from the closet in the appellant’s room. It is also
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 17 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
pertinent to note that the victim has deposed that the appellant hid her in
his closet after she had gained consciousness, however, both her parents
have deposed that the victim was found in the closet in an unconscious
state. Further, the victim deposed that the appellant ran away from the
spot after hiding her in the closet in his room, however, the Emergency
Response System Call, records that pursuant to the police reaching the
spot, the appellant was taken to the police station.
48. Considering that the conviction of the appellant was sustained on
the basis of the testimony of the victim, discrepancies in the same thus
go to the root of the present case and raises serious doubts on the veracity
of the case of the prosecution.
49. Pertinently, in order for an accused to be convicted solely on the
basis of the evidence of the victim, the testimony of the victim ought to
be one of sterling quality. A scrupulous analysis of the testimony of the
victim at various stages as shown above, illustrates various
inconsistencies, improvements and embellishments. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) : (2012) 8 SCC 21 has
laid down the threshold required to be met in order for a witness to be
considered a ‘sterling witness’. The same has been reproduced
hereunder:
22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a
very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness
should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any
hesitation. 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 fromSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 18 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
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. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and
under no circumstance should give 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 co-relation with each and
every one of 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 with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated
that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial
evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged
against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held
that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose
version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and
based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the
version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should
remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral,
documentary and material objects should match the said version in
material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to
rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for
holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.
50. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the above stated facts, the
testimony of the victim in the present case, cannot be said to be one of
sterling quality so as to not require independent corroboration. The
learned Trial Court erred in holding the victim’s testimony to be one of
sterling quality and convicting the appellant solely on the strength of the
same.
51. The learned counsel for the appellant further drew the attention of
this Court to the Emergency Response System (‘ERS’) Call, which
forms part of the charge sheet in the present case. The ERS record shows
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 19 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
that the first emergency call was received at 1:12 am and HC Krishan
reached the spot at 1:28 am. The ERS record merely records that the
appellant and the victim were friends and the victim went to the
appellant’s house, where the victim’s parents arrived and took her to the
hospital. It is pertinent to note that the ERS record forms part of the
charge sheet, however, the same was never exhibited during the Trial,
thereby further undermining the credibility of the prosecution’s case and
casting a serious doubt upon its veracity.
52. It is relevant to note that the ERS record indicates that the
appellant was taken to Police Station Mundka at 1:28 am, on the night
of the alleged incident, completely contrary to the same, the Arrest
Memo records the arrest of the appellant at 10:50 am in the morning.
Such a blatant inconsistency in the police records raises serious doubt
upon the investigation in the present case. Additionally, the ERS record
shows that HC Krishan was the first responder at the scene of the alleged
crime, however, HC Krishan has not been made a witness in the present
case, which further erodes the probative value of the prosecution’s case.
53. This Court now turns its gaze towards the medical and scientific
evidence in the present case. Pertinently, no incriminating material
against the appellant has been found in the FSL report in the present
case. Further, the MLC of the victim clearly records that neither
abnormalities were detected in the local examination of genital parts of
the victim nor external injury marks were detected. While absence of
incriminating evidence in the FSL report and MLC does not ipso facto
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 20 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
absolve the appellant of the charged offences, it does raise serious doubt
upon the case of the prosecution considering the testimony of the victim
is smeared with manifest discrepancies.
54. Another aspect of the present case that requires some
consideration is that the appellant and the victim were neighbours, living
in a densely populated area, however, no alarm was raised by the victim
when the appellant allegedly forcefully took her to his room. Moreover,
the father of the victim (PW-3) deposed that while he was searching for
the victim at the time of her rescue, their other neighbours had also been
aiding him in his search and had knocked on the door of the appellant
while searching for the victim. It is pertinent to note that none of these
neighbours have been made witnesses by the prosecution to corroborate
the rescue of the victim from the appellant’s house. In the facts of the
present case, absence of any independent witnesses’ casts further doubt
upon the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
55. Much emphasis has been laid by the State on the presumption of
commission of offence raised against the appellant in accordance with
Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The same, in the opinion of this Court,
does not aid the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that while
Section 29 of the POCSO Act provides for a presumption as to the
commission of certain offences, the said presumption is not absolute in
nature and only comes into play once the prosecution establishes the
foundational facts [Ref. Altaf Ahmed v. State (GNCTD of Delhi) : 2020
SCC OnLine Del 1938]. For this reason, in order to trigger the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 21 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
presumption, it is incumbent on the prosecution to lead evidence to
prove the foundational facts. If the prosecution fails to do so, in the
opinion of this Court, a negative burden cannot be thrust upon the
shoulders of the accused to prove otherwise.
56. As far as the allegations of the appellant committing offences
under Section 342/363/365/of the IPC are concerned, it is pertinent to
note that though the victim, her mother and father have deposed that the
victim was recovered from the room of the appellant, no independent
witnesses have been examined to corroborate the same. The victim’s
father, as noted above, categorically deposed that he was aided by
various neighbours who helped him find the victim in the appellant’s
room, however, none of the said neighbours have been named or been
made witnesses to corroborate the same.
57. This Court now turns its gaze towards the allegations of criminal
intimidation against the appellant, the victim deposed that when the
appellant heard the victim’s parents searching for her, he hid her in his
closet and threatened her that if she told anyone about the incident, he
would kill her. It is relevant to note that the said allegation is absent in
the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC, though this
Court is cognizant of the fact that a witness at different stages of the
investigation may elaborate upon different aspects of the incident,
however, in the present case, the testimony of parents of the victim cast
further doubt upon the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that
both parents of the victim have deposed that the victim was found in an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 22 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
unconscious state in the closet of the appellant. This material
contradiction casts serious doubt upon the case of the prosecution, since,
if the victim was in an unconscious state in the appellant’s closet, the
appellant could not have threatened her and caused criminal
intimidation.
58. It is also relevant to note that the victim’s father (PW-3) during
his cross-examination admitted that “Iss ghatna se pehle hamara Muljim
Karan ke pariwar ke saath tu-tu-main-main hui thi.”, the same, in
isolation, may not warrant an inference of false implication, when
viewed in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, it nonetheless gives rise to a degree of suspicion regarding the
possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated.
Conclusion
59. The solemn duty of a criminal court is not to convict merely
because an allegation is made, but to convict only when the allegation is
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
60. It is a settled principle that when two views are possible– one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence
— the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. This principle is
not a technical rule; it is rooted in the foundational notion that no person
shall be deprived of liberty except through proof that satisfies the
judicial conscience.
61. In the light of the foregoing, this Court is of the view that the
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 23 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
evidence led by the prosecution does not meet the standard of proof
required in a case of this nature. The benefit of doubt must and does go
to the appellant.
62. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and impugned order on
sentence are set aside.
63. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case. The bail bond, if furnished,
stands discharged.
64. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
65. This Court also appreciates the effort put in by the learned Amicus
Ms. Supriya Juneja in assisting the Court.
66. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for necessary compliance.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 17, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 1270/2025 Page 24 of 24
Signing Date:17.02.2026
20:36:14
