Delhi High Court
State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Sagar @ Ravinder on 25 May, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 20.05.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.05.2026
+ CRL.A. 1021/2017
STATE ( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Arvind, P.S. Gokalpuri.
versus
SAGAR @ RAVINDER .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Nikhil Kapoor, Advocate .
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the appellant/State in
Sessions Case No. 44257/2015 (Old SC. No. 89/2013) on the
file of the Additional Sessions Judge (North-East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated
25.01.2016 as per which the sole accused has been acquitted of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 1 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354A, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Sections 8 and 12 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (the PoCSO
Act).
2. The prosecution case is that for 3 to 4 days before
08.05.2013, the accused had been repeatedly stalking and
sexually harassing PW2, a minor girl aged about 13 years,
whenever she stepped out of her house to visit her friends, or to
attend school. Thereafter, on 08.05.2013 at about 9:30 PM, in
front of House No. A-547, Gokalpuri, the accused wrongfully
restrained PW2, held her hand with sexual intent, sexually
harassed her, and threatened to kill her and commit suicide.
Hence, as per the chargesheet/final report, the accused was
alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 8
of the POCSO Act and Sections 354A, 506 and 509 IPC.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 2 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS/FIR of PW2,
given on 08.05.2013, crime no. 182/2013, Gokal Puri Police
Station, i.e., Ext. PW5/B FIR was registered by PW5, Head
Constable (HC). PW8, Sub Inspector (SI), was entrusted with
the investigation of the case. PW8 conducted investigation into
the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-
sheet/final 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 27.07.2013, framed a
charge under Sections 341, 354A, 506 IPC and Sections 8 and
12 of the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the
accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 3 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were
examined and Ext. PW1/DXA, Ext. PW2/A-D, Ext. PW3/DA,
Ext. PW4/A-E, Ext. PW5/A-E, Ext. PW7/DA, and Ext. PW8/A-
Cwere 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 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 PW7, the brother of PW2 was found attempting
to steal a stereo from the car belonging to one of his family
members. Though the matter was patched up, PW7, in order to
take revenge, picked up a quarrel with him and thereafter got
him falsely implicated in connivance with the police.
7. The accused examined himself as DW1. No
documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the accused.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 4 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
8. 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 OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the
accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C
has caused any prejudice to him.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and
documentaryevidence on record, and after hearing both sides,
the trial court, vide the impugned judgement dated 25.01.2016,
acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 354A, 506 IPC and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 5 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
Sections 8 and 12 of the PoCSO Act. Aggrieved, the
appellant/State has preferred this appeal.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the Appellant/ State submitted that the impugned
judgment is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The version of PW2 has remained consistent. Her testimony has
not been discredited in any way and sufficient to establish the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 354A and 506 IPC as
well as Sections 8 and 12 of the PoCSO Act. Minor
discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses do
not vitiate the case when the core of the prosecution story stands
proved. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment of
acquittal be set aside, and the accused be convicted in
accordance with the law.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 6 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent/accused that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this Court.
12. Heard both sides and perused the records.
13. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this court.
14. I make a brief reference to the oral and
documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution in support of
the case. Ext. PW2/A, the FIS/FIR of PW2 recorded in hindi
roughly translated reads thus:- “I reside at the above-mentioned
address with my family and study in 8th B class at Sarvodaya
Kanya Vidyalaya, Gokulpuri, Delhi. I was ill for the last one to
one and a half months, because of which I was not going to
school. For the last 3-4 days, whenever I go to meet my friends
Nisha and Kajal at their house in C-Block, Gokulpuri, this boy,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 7 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
whose name and address is Sagar @ Ravindra (the accused),
son of Jitendra, resident of C-243, Gokulpuri, Delhi, has been
stalking me. He stops me on the way and says, “I love you and I
will marry you,” and says, “Become mine, otherwise I will give
up my life.”Today, on date 08.05.2013, during the night, when I
was returning to my house from a shop after taking milk, via my
friend Bharti’s house, at around 9:30 PM in the night, when I
reached the alley of my house, this boy Sagar @ Ravindra (the
accused) called me and asked me to stop. I kept walking; He
grabbed my hand. My brother Ombir, who was sitting outside
my house, saw this. I forcibly freed my hand.When my brother
ombir came and caught him, he [the accused] said, “I will stab
you in the stomach with a knife and kill you.” He also started
hurling filthy abuses at me and my brother Ombir. My sister
Deepali informed the police…”
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 8 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
15. PW2, when examined before the trial court,
deposed that for about four to five days prior to the incident, the
accused had been following her whenever she used to visit the
house of her friends at C Block, Gokalpuri. According to her,
the accused used to tell her that he was in love with her, that he
would marry her, otherwise he would commit suicide. The
accused also used to say “I love you” and ask her to give him a
kiss during the said period. PW2 further deposed that on
08.05.2013 at about 09:30 PM, when she was returning after
buying milk, the accused caught hold of her hand outside her
gali. She raised alarm, upon which PW1, her mother and PW7
her brother came. PW7 questioned the accused as to why he had
caught hold of her hand, whereupon the accused threatened the
former by saying that he would be stabbed. PW2 further
deposed that PW3, her elder sister made a call to the police,
following which the police arrived at the spot. PW2 further
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 9 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
deposed that her mother and brother apprehended the accused
and kept him in front of their house.
15.1. PW2, in her cross examination, denied the
suggestion that PW7, her brother had been apprehended while
attempting to steal a stereo from the car belonging to a member
of the accused’s family. PW2 also denied the suggestion that on
08.05.2013, PW7 had quarrelled with the accused and his
family or that she had lodged a false complaint against the
accused.
16. PW3, sister of PW2, deposed that though she did
not remember the exact date of the incident, it had taken place
about three to four months prior to her testifying before the
court. According to her, at about 09:30 PM while she was inside
her house, she heard some noises and so came outside. She then
saw the accused holding the hand of PW2.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 10 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
17. PW7, brother of the victim, deposed that on
08.05.2013 at about 08:00/08:15 PM, while he was standing
near his house, he heard the cries of PW2 whereupon he
immediately rushed towards the adjoining street. Upon reaching
there, he saw that the accused had caught hold of the hand of
PW2. PW2 thereafter freed her hand by force. When he
objected to the conduct of the accused, the latter started abusing
him and also threatened to kill him. On hearing the commotion,
his mother and PW3, his sister also reached the spot. Thereafter,
they apprehended the accused and informed the Police.
18. PW1, mother of PW2 supported the version of the
latter.
19. The accused when examined as DW1 deposed
that on 08.05.2013, between 08:00 PM to 08:30 PM, some
guests had come to his residence in an Alto car which was
parked at a distance of about 100 to 150 metres from his house.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 11 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
After dinner, while he was taking a walk along with two to three
other persons, he saw PW7 removing the stereo from the Alto
car with the help of a screwdriver. On seeing this, he along with
the others in his company pushed PW7 inside the car and closed
the door. A quarrel ensued. In the meantime, somebody
informed the police. The police arrived at the spot and took both
of them to the police station. DW1 further deposed that that his
mobile phone and other articles were seized by the police and so
he was unable to inform his family. According to DW1, he was
falsely implicated in the present case and his family members
came to know about the matter only on the next day when he
was being taken to the Court. DW1 deposed that he does not
know the victim and that he had never committed any wrongful
act against her.
19.1. DW1, in his cross examination, admitted that he
had not given any written complaint to any higher police
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 12 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
authority regarding the false implication or any complaint
against PW7 for the attempt to steal the car stereo.
20. The Appellate Court under Section 386(1) Cr.P.C,
may in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order
and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused may
be retried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find the
accused guilty and pass sentence on him according to law. The
general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal are :- firstly, the
appellate court has the power to review, reappreciate and
reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded. Secondly, the Code puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on
the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law. Thirdly, various expressions, such
as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 13 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,
“glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail the extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language”
to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with an acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review
the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. Fourthly, an
appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in the case of
acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the
accused, that is, (i) the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law, (ii) the accused
having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court. Lastly, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 14 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should notdisturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. (See
Babu Sahebogouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of
Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, Rajesh Prasad v. State of
Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471, Chandrappa vs. State of
Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415).
20.1. As observed by the Apex court in Ram Kumar v.
State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 248, the powers of the
High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the
evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and
379 Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order
of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the
High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the
view of the trial court with regard to the credibility of the
witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused,
the right of accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 15 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
of appellate court in reversing a finding of fact arrived at by ajudge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. If the main
grounds on which the trial court has based its order acquitting
the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot
entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High
Court should not disturb the order of acquittal.
21. Keeping the aforesaid facts in mind, I will
consider whether there is any infirmity or perversity in the
impugned judgment calling for an interference by this court.
The trial court has framed Charge for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 354A and 506 IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of
the PoCSO Act. Therefore, I will consider whether the materials
on record, that is, the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW7
establish the said offences. Section 354A IPC defines the
offence of sexual harassment. The essential ingredients are: (i)
the victim must be a woman; (ii) there must be unwelcome and
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 16 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
explicit sexual conduct; and (iii) such conduct may include
physical contact and advances involving sexual intent, a
demand or request for sexual favours, showing pornography
against her will, or making sexually coloured remarks. The
prerequisite of the offence is in the unwelcome nature of the act
coupled with sexual intent. The testimony of PW2, PW3 and
PW7 does not make out any of the ingredients of Section 354A
IPC.
22. Now coming to the offence contemplated under
Section 506 IPC which deals with punishment for criminal
intimidation. Criminal intimidation, defined in Section 503 of
IPC, says that whoever threatens another with any injury to his
person, reputation of property, or to the person or reputation of
anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause
alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 17 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits the offense of criminal
intimidation. According to PW2, the prosecutrix, PW7, her
brother on seeing the accused catching hold of her hand
questioned the accused and then the accused threatened her
brother that he would be stabbed. But PW7 seems to have a
slightly different version. According to PW7, when he objected
to the act of the accused catching hold of his sister’s hand, the
respondent/accused, started abusing him and also threatened to
kill him. A mere threat by the respondent/accused would not be
sufficient to attract the offence of criminal intimidation as
contemplated under Section 503 IPC. The testimony of neither
PW2 nor PW7 shows that by the alleged threat of the
respondent/accused, any alarm was caused to PW7. Therefore,
one of the essential ingredients of the offence of 506 IPC is also
not seen made out.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 18 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
23. Now coming to Sections 8 and 12 of the PoCSO
Act. Section 8 PoCSO deals with punishment for sexual assault,
which is defined in Section 7 PoCSO. As per the said section,
whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or
breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis,
anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any
other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact
without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. Section 12
of the PoCSO Act provides punishment for sexual harassment,
which is defined in Section 11. The essential ingredients of
Section 11 are: (i) the victim must be a child below 18 years of
age; (ii) the accused must engage in sexual harassment without
physical contact; and (iii) such conduct may include making
sexual remarks, gestures, showing pornography, or repeatedly
communicating with sexual intent.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 19 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
24. None of the ingredients of the offences defined
under Section 7 or Section 11 is made out from the testimony of
PW2. At best, the offence of wrongful restraint as contemplated
under Section 341 IPC can be said to have been committed. But,
the view arrived at by the trial court is a plausible view and, in
such circumstances, when an acquittal has been recorded by the
trial court, the appellate court is not to interfere with the same
unless the findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous or based
on mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record. If, the
view taken by the trial court is a plausible and reasonable view
based on the materials on record, same does not warrant
interference merely because another view is possible. (See
Chandrappa & Ors vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415). No perversity or manifest error is seen in the impugned
judgment.
25. Hence, the appeal sans merit, is dismissed
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 20 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
26. Application(s), if any, pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
MAY 25, 2026/mj
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 1021/2017 Page 21 of 21
Signed By:RAMAN
SHARMA
Signing Date:25.05.2026
15:58:04
