Delhi High Court
Ram Murat vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 21 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of reserving: 06th April, 2026
Date of Decision: 21st April, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 444/2022
RAM MURAT .....Appellant
Through: Appellant-in-person with Ms. Manika
Tripathy (DHCLSC) with Ms. Roman
Khan and Mr. Saksham, Advs.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the
State with SI Krishan Verma PS
Inderpuri.
Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Amicus
Curiae for the victim / prosecutrix.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. Appellate jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the Appellant
under Section 374(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C) with the aid
of Section 482 Cr.P.C. while assailing the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence dated 30.03.2022 and 18.05.2022 respectively, delivered by the
learned ASJ-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
Trial Court).
2. Appellant Ram Murat was held guilty and convicted under Section
376 (2)(f)(i) of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC‘), 1860 and Section 6 of Protection
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 1 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO’), 2012 and was sentenced
to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a term of 15 years and fine of Rs.
20,000/- under Section 376 (2)(f)(i) IPC and in default of payment of fine,
Simple Imprisonment (SI) for six months. The co-accused, whereas, who
happens to be the biological mother of the victims and wife of Appellant,
charged under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, (POCSO), was acquitted by the Trial Court.
3. While passing the Sentence, learned Trial Court has ordered payment
of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- and as the child victim ‘K’
who expired on 12.02.2016, therefore, it was ordered that the compensation
shall be paid to the dependents of the victim.
4. Tragic and unfortunate would be belittling the trauma undergone by
the victims in the instant case at the hands of their step-father. The man in
whom they, as children, were supposed to find comfort, solace and security,
turned out to be the perpetrator of sexual assault. To add salt to the injury,
their biological mother also seemingly acquiesced to the trauma undergone
by the girls as she kept quiet or did not take the requisite measures to save
the children when the indecent acts of the Appellant were brought to her
notice except moving out of the house for some time and then came back to
live with Appellant. Seemingly, she was torn between the devil and the deep
sea as she had left her former husband and biological father of the victims
herein and not only started living with the Appellant, but bore a girl child to
him as well. That seems to be the reason why, alongwith the Appellant, she
too was chargesheeted and tried, but was acquitted by the learned Trial
Court.
5. The ordeal of sexual assault was being faced by the victims for the last
about 1½ years prior to the present incident. The matter reported took place
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 2 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
between 25.04.2014 to 28.04.2014, which the victims could not withstand
and shrieks of victim ‘K’ attracted the attention of the landlord Sanjay
(PW2) and his wife Suman (PW-11). When the husband wife duo realized as
to what was going on, they facilitated the victim and the matter was reported
to police by victim ‘K’ from the phone of Sanjay (PW-2). It so happened
that the step-sister of the victims i.e. the biological daughter of their mother
and the Appellant was sick and hospitalized. Their mother was staying at the
hospital to take care of the youngest child. The Appellant took advantage of
absence of the mother of the children and raped the elder sister and molested
the younger one.
6. On the fateful night, the mother of the victims ‘K’ and ‘M’ wanted the
victim ‘K’ to stay at the hospital, but the Appellant, under the influence of
liquor, fought with the mother and brought the victim ‘K’ back home. The
resistance on the part of the mother stems out of the apprehension that the
child would be abused, which unfortunately turned out to be correct.
7. When the Appellant started misbehaving with ‘K’, she somehow
managed to go out of the room, then the evil eye of the Appellant fell upon
the younger sister of ‘K’ i.e. ‘M’ aged about 9 years, who became the target
of his lustful hands. She also somehow, managed to come out of the room.
The victims were again brought back inside the room by the Appellant. He
started abusing the victim ‘K’. She cried and somehow drew the attention of
the landlord, who came downstairs at the room of the Appellant and his wife
followed later. They, from what they saw, realized the goings on inside the
room and thus, took both the victims alongwith them at their room on the
first floor. The girls disclosed their ordeal at the hands of their step-father
and that is how the matter was reported to the police by the victim
‘K’/landlord.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 3 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
8. Based upon the statement of victim ‘K’, an FIR was registered under
Section 376 IPC and Section 14(3)/14(4)/9(m)/10 of POCSO Act. The
requisites of the investigation were carried out and the chargesheet was filed,
which ultimately resulted into conviction of the Appellant as aforesaid.
9. Against the backdrop of the above stated facts and circumstances, the
present appeal came into existence. It is asserted on behalf of the Appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that there is no evidence
against the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Appellant, while assailing the
impugned judgment, emphasized that the case of the prosecution is highly
improbable and unbelievable on account of the fact that the testimonies on
record, especially of the two victims ‘K’ and ‘M’ and the husband wife duo
i.e. landlords, are full of inherent contradictions and inconsistencies, which
render it unreliable and unbelievable. Additionally, it is submitted that the
victims have falsely implicated the Appellant on account of the fact that he
happens to be their step-father and that the girls had an inborn hatred
towards Appellant since he replaced their biological father. According to the
learned counsel for the Appellant, it did not go down well with ‘K’ and ‘M’.
They could not reconcile this situation. The victims were separated from
their biological father by their mother because of the Appellant. And that is
the reason why this case came into being.
10. It is further submitted that there is no corroboration to the testimony
of the victims as no scientific evidence is there. The MLC nowhere reflects
any injury on the body or any part of the body of the victims and there is no
word about the status of the hymen. Therefore, all these factors go on to
belie the story of the victim especially of ‘K’ that she was being
continuously raped by the Appellant for the last 1½ years prior to
28.04.2014.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 4 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
11. There is a mix-up qua the date as to when exactly the incident in
question took place, whether it was on 28.04.2014 or 29.04.2014. In addition
to that, learned counsel for the Appellant has emphasized about the
testimony of the PW4 victim ‘M’, who according to her, has turned hostile
and has categorically stated that no wrong act was done by the Appellant
with her. However, she has deposed that she was kissed on her cheeks and
her breast was also touched. When it comes about the ordeal of her elder
sister ‘K’, she has categorically stated about it and supported the case of the
prosecution. Relevant portion of her Examination-In-Chief is reproduced
here under:
“After some time I noticed that my father removed his clothes and
then of my sister and did some “kuch galat kaam” (apni su su ko
potty wali jagah main ghusa rahe the). My sister dropped a
glass.”
12. Learned counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued about the
discrepancies and has tried to wriggle out of the situation in which the
Appellant has landed himself. However, the discrepancies and variations are
not such which may affect the core of the issue.
13. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of
contradictions, laid the following guidelines in the case titled as Balu
Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365:
“25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no
fixed or strait jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence.
The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in
a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be
whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a
ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly
necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out
in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it isSignature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 5 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and
whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it
unworthy of belief.
II. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the
opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence
given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will
have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial
court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not
be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to
make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only
when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible
with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning
his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the
case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context
here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical
error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the
matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two
witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an
unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not
as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The
witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has
an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one
may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its
image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part
of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and
reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only
recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 6 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an
occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the
spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect
people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.
Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from
person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the
sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short
time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the
court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination by counsel and
out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of
events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.
The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on
account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the
witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the
evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction.
Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later
statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to
some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.”
14. If the testimony of the witnesses, especially the contradictions pointed
out by the learned counsel for the Appellant are tested on the aforesaid
parameters in the given facts and circumstances, then it would emerge that
the discrepancies are not material. In fact, one of the most hyped out
discrepancy is the date of the incident. Learned counsel for the Appellant has
argued that two different dates have come with regard to the incident i.e.
28.04.2014 and 29.04.2014. It is submitted that this in itself raises a serious
question mark about the veracity of the case. However, this riddle stands
solved if the testimony of the victims is juxtaposed with their MLCs.
According to the statement of the witnesses ‘K’ and ‘M’, their ordeal started
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 7 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
at around 8:30 or 9:00 PM on 28.04.2014 and by the time, the matter was
reported to the police and the MLC was prepared, it was well beyond 12:00
AM in the night of 28.04.2014. The MLC Ex.PW-1/A clearly reflects that
the victim ‘K’ was brought for her medical examination on 29.04.2014 at
2:30 AM. In such circumstances, the mix up with regard to the date in the
mind of the victims, cannot be ruled out and certainly cannot be taken as a
serious lapse or contradiction, so as to completely wipe out the case.
15. Apart from the victims, the other two vital witnesses have maintained
that the incident took place on 28.04.2014. Thus, the conjoint reading of the
testimonies of the victims, the landlord and his wife coupled with the details
given in the MLC Ex. PW-1/A, there remains no doubt about the date of
incident that the incident took place in the night of 28.04.2014.
16. Another aspect, which has been highlighted by the learned counsel for
the Appellant is the location of the victim and the Appellant in the room
where the incident took place. The witnesses, according to the learned
counsel for the Appellant, are at variance as to where the Appellant was
sitting, how he was sitting and where one of the victims was in the room
when the landlord and his wife got the room opened. The Appellant was
sitting on the floor or on the bed is not clear. He was dressed or undressed or
partially dressed is also not clear and for that matter, where were the victims,
when the door was opened at the instance of the landlord Sanjay (PW-2).
17. So far as the Appellant is concerned, he was found sitting in the room.
He was in his undergarments sitting on the bed as stated by Suman (PW-11),
whereas Sanjay (PW-2) also found him sitting in the room in his
undergarments but on the floor. It is pertinent to note here that the wife of
the landlord Suman (PW-11) had joined her husband after sometime,
whereas landlord Sanjay (PW-2) initially went to the room of the Appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 8 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
alone. This in itself is self explanatory as there may be a possibility that by
the time Suman (PW-11) arrived there, the Appellant changed his position
from floor to bed or vice versa. However, what is important, vital and
relevant is the presence of the Appellant in the room, which both the
landlord and his wife have stated and both have maintained this fact that the
Appellant was sitting in his undergarments. The fact whether he was on the
bed or on the floor, is not that important so as to put a question mark about
the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
18. Incidentally, learned counsel for the Appellant has raised an issue
about non-inclusion and non-examination of one Anand, who according to
the case of the prosecution was the first person to know about these things,
but then not only the mother of the victim ‘K’, but the Appellant too has
pleaded ignorance about the so called Anand in their statements recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, when the existence and
presence of Anand is itself under a cloud, how come the prosecution or the
police would have examined such a person. Learned counsel for the
Appellant has no answer to this question, which in the process completely
takes away the arguments in this context raised by learned counsel for the
Appellant. What is there is more important as compared to what could have
been. It may be possible that the so called Anand was a witness, but for
some reason, he was not joined in the proceedings and was not examined.
This alone is not fatal. If, according to the Appellant, he was a truthful
witness, then in that eventuality, the Appellant himself could have brought
him in his defence. In any case, the matter is to be decided on the basis of
what is there before the Court and not that, which could have been there.
Where the person would have stood, with the prosecution or with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 9 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
defence is anybody’s guess. Any such hypothesis would be impractical to
entertain. Thus, the contention in this regard is brushed aside.
19. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further drawn the attention of
the Court to the testimony of Dr. Minu Keshkar (PW-3), to emphasize that
no scientific evidence is available with regard to any assault or any sexual
assault, penetrative or otherwise. It is submitted that the Doctor has
categorically stated about the victim ‘M’ that she and her mother, refused
gynaecological examination and sample collection, as can be seen in the
document Ex. PW-3/A. However, the MLC in respect of victim ‘K’ nowhere
reflects any injury etc. indicative of sexual assault, evident in the MLC Ex.
PW-3/B (Ex. PW-3/3).
20. Learned counsel for the Appellant, as such asserted that the Appellant
has been falsely implicated by his own step-daughters out of vengeance and
hatred originating from the fact that their mother has dumped their biological
father for the Appellant.
21. Learned counsel for the Appellant has seemingly ignored the FSL
result Ex. PW-9/A and if the scientific evidence i.e. the MLC and the FSL
are read conjointly, then the complicity of the Appellant no longer remains
doubtful in any manner.
22. The MLC Ex. PW-3/B (Ex. PW-3/3) prepared by Dr. Minu Keshkar
(PW-3) clearly reflects that the requisite samples in terms of Sexual Assault
Forensic Evidence Kit (Safe Kit) were taken and handed over to the
Investigating Officer in sealed condition.
23. Those samples were examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory
(‘FSL’), as has been deposed by PW-9 Ms. Anita Chhari, Senior Scientific
Officer, Biology, FSL. The relevant part of her testimony reproduced herein
below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 10 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
“On 08.05.2014 four sealed forensic parcels received in
connected with FIR No. 107/14 PS Inder Puri in DNA Unit. In this
case I examined all the parcels, biological and DNA analysis. I
gave the number to the exhibits as mentioned in my report. After
biological examination blood was deducted on blood sample of
victim i.e. 1p1 and 1p2, 1q2 and blood sample of accused i.e. 4.
Blood could not be deducted on other exhibits. Human semen was
deducted on exhibits 1k1, 1k2 i.e. microslide of victim and 1k3
cotton wool swab of victim and 2a underwear of victim and semen
could not be deducted on other exhibits. After DNA examination
conclusion is that the DNA profiling STR Anlysis performed on
exhibits 1k1, 1k2 (microslides of victim), exhibit 1k3 (cotton wool
swab of victim), exhibit 1p1 (Blood sample of victim), exhibit 2a
(underwear of victim) & exhibit 4 (Blood sample of accused)
provided is sufficient to conclude that the seminal stains from the
source of exhibits 1k1, lk2 (microslides of victim), exhibit 1k3
(cotton wool swab of victim) & exhibit 2a (underwear of victim) is
similar with the source of exhibit 4 (Blood sample of accused).
After examining the exhibits, same were sealed with seal of AC
FSL Delhi. My detailed report is EX.PW9A, it bears my signature
at point A on each page.”
24. It is settled proposition of law that in case of sexual offences, the
testimony of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to nail down the accused
provided it is of sterling quality, impeccable trustworthy and credible
enough not to allow any kind of doubt or suspicion to afflict it. No
corroboration to such testimony is required and findings in a case can be
based upon such statement. Reference in this context can be made to the
judgment passed 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 11 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
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 interested
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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 12 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
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
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, whileSignature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 13 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
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 a
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 14 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
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] .
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.”
25. In the instant case, the testimony of the victims, more particularly of
victim ‘K’ is credible and trustworthy being free from any sort of
embellishment or mix up, so far as narration of events is concerned and in
any case, corroboration also is there to support the version of victim ‘K’, in
both segments i.e. ocular and direct evidence together with scientific and
technical. The circumstances are heavily loaded against the Appellant in
such a manner that there is no escape for him from the conclusion that he
sexually assaulted his minor step-daughters.
26. The undue insistence on the part of the Appellant to bring back victim
‘K’ and for that matter, the biological mother of victim ‘K’ also wanted
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 15 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
victim ‘K’ to stay back in the hospital, where the youngest daughter of
Appellant-Ram Murat and his wife i.e. biological mother of victim ‘K’, was
admitted and was under treatment for chickenpox is an incriminating
circumstance. It has come on record that the biological mother of the victim
‘K’ was apprehensive about the intentions of the Appellant-Ram Murat and
that is why, she wanted to have her daughter stay back at the hospital. The
Appellant, however, managed to bring ‘K’ back home with him. The
testimony of ‘K’ and her younger sister ‘M’, speaks volumes about the
ordeal, which they had undergone on that day and even prior to 28.04.2014
at the hands of accused Ram Murat.
27. Another circumstance, which stands against the Appellant is in the
shape of testimony of landlord Sanjay (PW-2) and his wife Suman (PW-11).
Landlord Sanjay was residing on the ground floor, whereas Appellant Ram
Murat was a tenant on the first floor. An understanding was developed
between the victim and the landlord that in case of any untoward incident
taking place, the victims would thump their first floor room, which would
convey that they are in distress and need help. This happened, which brought
the landlord and thereafter his wife at the room of the Appellant, which had
tell tale story about something going wrong in the said room. When the
landlord and his wife brought the sisters downstairs at their room, they
revealed the whole incident and in the meantime, when the Appellant tried to
escape from there, he was caught hold by the landlord and prior to that,
police was already informed telephonically by victim ‘K’. All these
circumstances, support the version of victim ‘K’.
28. Corroboration to the version of victim ‘K’ further comes with the
MLC Ex.PW-1/A and the FSL result Ex. PW-9/A. On the conjoint reading
of the testimony of Dr. Minu Keshkar (PW-3) and Ms. Anita Chhari (PW-9),
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 16 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
it is evident that the victim ‘K’ was examined by Dr. Minu Keshkar, who,
though, did not find any injury mark etc., but the history given by the victim
clearly reflects about the assault being faced by victim ‘K’ for the last about
1½ years prior to 28.04.2014. Dr. Minu Keshkar complied with the
requirement by having the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Kit (Safe Kit),
which was sealed and handed over to the police, who in turn took it to the
FSL, where the examination, more particularly, on examination of the
underwear of the victim and the blood sample of Appellant-Ram Murat the
seminal stains were found connecting the Appellant with the offence. There
is no explanation as to how this scientific evidence is there if the Appellant
has no involvement in the offence.
29. The attempt by the Appellant to wriggle out of the situation by
bringing evidence in his defence has proved futile inasmuch as he has
examined himself as DW-1 and his employer as DW-2. However, the
evidence led by the Appellant nowhere rule out or dislodge the case of the
prosecution. He has tried to portray that the victim and her mother had left
him for some time and then again came back to him, which shows that the
victim was not being ill-treated. Had there been any kind of misbehaviour,
then there was no occasion for the victim and her mother to come back to
him. However, it has come on record that he had promised to behave
properly and on that assurance, the mother of the victim joined the company
of the Appellant again.
30. The biological mother of the victim ‘K’ was a co-accused, who has
been acquitted by the Trial Court and in her statement recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., she has admitted in response to Question No. 1, that the
Appellant was present in Delhi on the fateful day and that he had taken back
the victim ‘K’ from the hospital against the wishes of the victim and her
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 17 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
mother. As regards, the apprehension in the mind of the victim and her
mother, that too has been admitted by her in response to Question No. 2. It
was sexual assault committed by the Appellant upon victim ‘K’, which
forced the biological mother of victim ‘K’ to part with the company of the
Appellant as she took a separate room on rent, as has been admitted by the
biological mother of victim ‘K’ in response to Question No. 12 in her
statement. She has also admitted that she came back to reside with the
Appellant on his request, as is there in response to Question No. 13.
31. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs to bring home the case
against the accused and the statement of the accused cannot be taken against
the accused, but then co-accused and the accused, for that matter, responses
of the accused can definitely be looked into in order to lend some credence
to the case of the prosecution, if it is found to be so.
32. Incidentally, not only the mother of victim ‘K’, but the Appellant too
has admitted about the insistence to bring back ‘K’ from the hospital.
Testimony is there to that effect and the answer of the Appellant and his wife
only cements and fortifies it further against the Appellant.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the Appellant has
been unable to show any substance in the appeal. Therefore, the impugned
Judgment is not required to be interfered with. As a result, the appeal fails
and stands dismissed. The Appellant to surrender forthwith to serve the
sentence.
34. Copy of the judgment be transmitted to learned Trial Court and Prison
Authorities for information and necessary compliance.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
APRIL 21, 2026/akc/tng
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHOK CRL.A. 444/2022 Ram Murat vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Page 18 of 18
KUMAR CHOUHAN
Signing Date:23.04.2026
11:18:47
