Delhi High Court
State vs Kuldeep on 25 March, 2026
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 03rd February, 2026
Pronounced on: 25th March, 2026
+ CRL.A. 264/2021
STATE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Adv.
Insp. Sandeep Kumar, SI
Dinesh Kumar, PS Nand Nagri.
versus
KULDEEP .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Ms.
Pallavi Sharma Kansal, Mr.
Pratham Malik, Ms. Vanshika
Kapoor, Advs. along with
accused in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. State takes exception to the judgment dated 20th July, 2019,
whereby, respondent Kuldeep has been acquitted of all the charges
levelled against him.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per charge sheet, are that on 23rd
January, 2013, father of the prosecutrix ‘P’ (name withheld), came at
Police Station Nand Nagri and lodged a complaint that his daughter
has been lured away by some unknown person. He stated in such
complaint that he is a driver and had gone to Gauhati with his truck
and upon coming back, he was informed by his wife that on 10th
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
January, 2013, she left for work at 11.00 am, and in the evening when
she returned back, she found the prosecutrix missing from the house.
His wife made efforts to search her at her relatives places but could
not find any clue. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was
registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC“].
3. During investigation, the photograph of the prosecutrix was
uploaded on Zip-net, wireless message was flashed and ‘Hue & Cry’
notice was published. In order to trace the prosecutrix, the mobile
number, from which the prosecutrix had made call at her home, was
kept on surveillance. It was found that the location of the aforesaid
number was at Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar and the same was in the name
of Ram Kumar, son of Hari Ram.
4. On 26th January, 2013, SI Rajeev (PW-11) along with the
parents of the victim and Constable Ram Kishan (PW-3) went to
Amritsar. On enquiry, Ram Kumar informed that the phone was being
used by Rani, wife of Jairaj, resident of Rajeev Nagar, Lohgarh Gate,
Amritsar.
5. On 27th January, 2013, prosecutrix ‘P’ was recovered from
Rajeev Nagar, Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar on the pointing out of her
father. Respondent Kuldeep was apprehended on the pointing out of
prosecutrix ‘P’ from Railway Station, Amritsar. On 28th January,
2013, prosecutrix and respondent Kuldeep were brought at PS Nand
Nagri. They were got medically examined. The exhibits were seized.
Statements of prosecutrix were recorded under Section 161 & 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure [“Cr.P.C.”]. Respondent was
subsequently arrested. On 29th January, 2013, prosecutrix was
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
produced before Child Welfare Committee [“CWC”], Dilshad Garden
and by the orders of CWC, she was handed over to her parents.
Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”], Rohini.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. The date of birth proof of the
prosecutrix was collected. On completion of investigation, charge
sheet was filed against respondent Kuldeep under Sections
363/366/342/376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO”].
6. Charges under Section 363/366/342/506 and under Section 376
IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act were framed against the
respondent, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to bring home guilt of the respondent, prosecution
examined 12 witnesses. Statement of respondent was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing
on record against him. He claimed that he was innocent and was
falsely implicated. He stated that he had never gone to Amritsar nor
had taken or called the victim to Amritsar. He further stated that the
mother of the victim had demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him and on his
refusal, the victim and her family falsely implicated him in this case.
According to him, he was arrested by the police in Delhi. He refused
to lead any evidence in his defence.
8. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the rival
submissions, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 20th July,
2019, acquitted the respondent.
9. Mr. Usman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor [“APP”] for
the State, submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
trial court is manifestly erroneous, contrary to law and against the
facts and evidence on record. It was submitted that prosecution case
stood fully established through the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1),
who unequivocally supported the prosecution version and duly
corroborated her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C
before the learned Magistrate. It was argued that learned trial court fell
in error in disregarding her testimony on the basis of minor
contradictions and alleged improvements, which were natural and
insignificant, particularly, when the witness had consistently
maintained that she was kidnapped under threat and subjected to
sexual intercourse by the respondent. He further submits that as per
the testimonies of the parents of the prosecutrix, the age of the
prosecutrix was 16 – 16 ½ years at the time of incident, which fact is
corroborated by the date of birth as recorded in the birth certificate Ex.
PW-4/X2. Thus, prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of
the offence.
10. We have considered the submissions made.
11. In the cases of kidnapping and rape, the prime question for
consideration always remains the age of the prosecutrix. The age is
most relevant because the age of the prosecutrix is a vital factor to find
out if she was having the capacity to give consent to go with the
accused or indulge in sexual act.
12. Prosecution has built its case on the basis that prosecutrix was
aged about 16 ½ years at the time of incident. Since she was less than
18 years of age, she was not in a position to give consent to the
accused to take her away from the custody of her parents. As proof of
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
her age, prosecution places strong reliance upon the testimonies of the
father (PW-4), mother (PW-5) and the birth certificate Ex. PW-4/X2.
13. As per birth certificate Ex. PW-4/X2, the date of birth recorded
is 21st July, 1997. In order to prove the birth certificate, prosecution
examined PW-10 Shri Niwas, Public Health Inspector and Incharge
Record Keeper, Birth & Death, North Zone, MCD. He could not
produce the original birth register regarding the birth certificate of the
prosecutrix, as according to him, the said record got lost while shifting
the office from Nand Nagri Centre to Shahdara North Zone. The copy
of the birth certificate, placed on record, is therefore not proved and is
of no help in proving the age of the prosecutrix.
14. In his examination in chief, father of the prosecutrix (PW-4)
stated that the age of the prosecutrix was 16 ½ years at the time of
incident, but in cross examination, when asked, he could not tell the
date of birth of his daughter. He stated that he does not have the MCD
hospital record regarding date of birth/age of his daughter. According
to him, his wife had gone to the school at the time of her admission
with her Janam Patri as age proof. He further stated that the Janam
Parti was got prepared by his wife from the dispensary at Nand Nagri
at the time of her birth. Admittedly, Janam Patri cannot be considered
as proof of date of birth, and therefore the age, if any, recorded in the
school record on the basis of Janam Patri, also cannot be considered as
proof of age of the prosecutrix. In further cross examination, PW-4
was confronted with “Jachcha Bachcha Raksha Card” (Vaccination
Card) of the prosecutrix, which is Ex. PW-4/DX1. The date of birth
recorded in Ex. PW-4/DX1 is not legible. PW-4 stated in cross
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
examination that he cannot tell the date of birth of the prosecutrix,
mentioned in Ex. PW-4/X3. Be that as it may, even the “Jachcha
Bachcha Raksha Card” cannot be treated as the proof of date of birth
of the prosecutrix.
15. The mother of the prosecutrix (PW-5) deposed in her
examination in chief that the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years.
However, in cross examination, she failed to tell her date of birth.
Undoubtedly, parents are the best persons to tell the age of their
children, but given the circumstances where neither PW-4 nor PW-5
could tell the date of birth of the prosecutrix and in the absence of any
authentic document of the age proof having been proved on record, we
are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix
was a minor at the time of incident, and therefore that being so,
POCSO Act shall also have no applicability.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that
there are contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. The story
propounded with regard to the manner in which the prosecutrix was
kidnapped from Delhi under threat and called at Amritsar where she
was confined and raped, is improbable and full of contradictions. It is
argued that the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial court,
is just and appropriate after due consideration of the evidence on
record and therefore does not call for any interference.
17. We find merit in the above submission. The testimony of the
prosecutrix in sexual offences is of utmost importance. By now, it is
well settled that unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate
looking for corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix, the
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim
of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her
testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to her
statement before relying upon the same as a whole, in such cases,
would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The victim of rape is
not an accomplice and her evidence can be acted upon without
corroboration. If evidence is reliable and inspires confidence,
conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.
Hence, the deposition of the prosecutrix has to be looked as a whole to
find out whether the same has ring of truth.
18. Prosecutrix stepped in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed
that on 10th January 2013, she made a call, which got connected on a
wrong number. Thereafter, she started receiving calls from the said
number. She improved her statement by further stating that it all
started prior to 10th January, 2013. The person who called from that
number, had told his name as Sachin. According to her, on 10th
January 2013, the caller directed her that she should go to the place as
per his direction, otherwise, he would kill his family members or her
school-going younger brother. She was also directed to carry Rs. 3
lakhs. She was directed by the caller to board a bus from Kashmere
Gate, which goes to Amritsar. According to her, she acted as directed
and boarded the bus and reached Amritsar on 11th January, 2013 at
8.30 am. On reaching Amritsar, she told the caller that she was
standing near Lohya Gate. An ECO van of white colour, in which,
Moti Chachi, one another lady and three boys came. On a specific
question put by the learned Prosecutor, she stated that the person who
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
had called her on phone and whose name was Sachin, was also present
in that van. She identified the respondent as the same person who had
called her on phone. She further deposed that she was made to sit in
the van and a handkerchief was put on her face, due to which, she lost
her senses. When she regained her senses, she found herself on a cot
in the room and her hands were lying tied with the cot. She further
deposed that respondent and his Chachi used to come to the room and
as and when she asked that she should be taken to her home, she was
beaten up by the respondent. She was made to do a lot of work.
Respondent told her that he was preparing her video and therefore she
should look cheerful. She deposed that respondent tried to kill her
with knives and threatened to kill her parents. She further deposed that
respondent used to do “Galat Kaam” with her everyday. When asked
to explain, she clarified that after removing her clothes, respondent
used to have physical relations with her as husband and wife. She
stated that respondent used to beat her and did not allow her to come
to Delhi and that once a call came at his Chachi’s number, at that time,
he was uttering that he was calling from police station.
19. In reply to a leading question put by the learned Prosecutor, she
admitted that respondent had put ‘Sindoor’ on her forehead and also
gave her ‘Chuda’, asking her to behave and tell everyone that they
were husband and wife. He forcibly took a photograph with her and
got a video recording made. She further deposed that once accused
had left his phone in the room from which she called her parents,
requesting her mother to rescue her from there.
20. It has been further deposed by PW-1 that on 27th January, 2013,
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
someone knocked the door, and on opening the door, police officials
were found standing. The respondent ran away. The police
apprehended the Chachi of respondent as also her younger son. They
were taken to Police Station at Amritsar. Thereafter, the respondent
was produced by his family members at the police station. Police had
then interrogated the respondent. Thereafter, they had gone to railway
station and came to Delhi by train.
21. If the testimony of PW-1 is to be believed, her acquaintance
with the respondent was only through mobile phone. In her cross
examination, she stated that she had spoken with the respondent
before 10th January 2013 on a number of occasions. They were having
conversations for about 15 days or 01 month prior to 10th January,
2013. She admitted that she used to call him on phone and also sent
SMS’s to him. In further cross examination, she stated that she started
calling the respondent as “Babu” or “Husband”. However, she
volunteered to add that it was under threat. She admitted that she had
not made any complaint to the police that respondent used to force her
to call him “Babu” or “Husband”. She stated in cross examination that
there were four tenants in the house where she was residing, but she
did not make any complaint to any such person regarding threats from
the respondent. She stated that the expenses for travelling to Amritsar
were taken by her as advance from her employer on the pretext of
shopping. She made no complaint to her employer. She could not tell
the cost of ticket to Amritsar. She admitted that she had not given the
ticket to the police. She also admitted that she had not disclosed to
anyone including her friends, relatives and employer that she was
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
going to Amritsar. She admitted that she has number of relatives
staying in Punjab and Amritsar but had not contacted any of them to
tell that she was in Amritsar. She stated in cross examination that
respondent had taken her to Sheetla Mandir. She further stated that she
has no knowledge that if anyone had beaten or threatened her mother
or brother. She admitted that she had not made any complaint to the
police, relative or any other person at Golden Temple. She admitted
that she made no effort to run away from Amritsar. She admitted that
in the video clipping shown to her, she was looking happy, even
though, she claimed that the same was because of threat from the
respondent.
22. A perusal of the testimony of the prosecutrix reveals that
respondent had not used any physical force to kidnap the prosecutrix
from Delhi to Amritsar. Rather, he was not even present in Delhi. The
evidence also indicates that she had travelled to Amritsar alone by bus
and thus was not under any physical threat. The story propounded that
due to threats from the respondent on mobile phone, she was forced to
leave the house and go to Amritsar, appears to be improbable,
inasmuch as, she had no physical contact with the respondent prior to
the occurrence. She could have made complaint to her mother,
relatives or the police with regard to the threats, if any, from the
respondent. While staying at Amritsar, she did not reach out for help
or raise hue and cry and did not try to run away from the house of the
respondent. The MLC mentions “no visible fresh external injury”,
thereby, negating the story of the prosecutrix regarding beatings
endured by her and presence of blisters on her hands. It is not her case
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
that she was all the times confined in a room. She had ample
opportunity to make good her escape, while she was taken to Golden
Temple or Sheetla Mandir. She could have attracted the attention of
the passersby and made complaints to them. While such conduct by
itself may not be determinative, it becomes relevant when considered
along with other circumstances.
23. In her cross examination, the prosecutrix stated that in 2012-
2013, she used to go to a factory at Village Mandoli and used to do the
work of dye stamping and received Rs. 3000/- per month as salary.
She stated she was regular in her job at Mandoli till 4-5 months back.
She admitted that she had gone for her job for the complete month of
January 2013 without break and got complete salary of Rs. 3000/-. If
she attended the work during the entire month of January 2013, the
story put-forth by her of going to Amritsar under threat, forcible
confinement and rape, is improbable and cannot be believed.
24. Hence, upon careful scrutiny of the testimony of the
prosecutrix, we find that her testimony does not inspire confidence
required to treat it as one of sterling quality. Her deposition is marked
by material contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies on core
aspects of the prosecution case, particularly regarding the
circumstances in which she left home, her prior contact with the
accused/respondent, and the events allegedly constituting the offence.
These discrepancies are not minor variations but go to the root of the
prosecution case, thereby, rendering her version unreliable and unfit,
so as to base the conviction solely on her testimony.
25. The evidence shows that prosecutrix was recovered from a
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
house at Amritsar, while respondent was not present there. As per the
testimony of the prosecutrix, the respondent was produced by his
family members at the police station, while as per the father of the
prosecutrix (PW-4), Constable Ram Kishan (PW-3) and SI Rajeev
(PW-11), he was apprehended from Railway Station, Amritsar during
search on the pointing out of the prosecutrix. To the contrary, the
mother of the prosecutrix (PW-5) deposed that respondent was
apprehended while they had come to Railway Station, Amritsar for
boarding train to Delhi. Thus, the place and manner of arrest of the
respondent is also doubtful.
26. Prosecutrix deposed in her testimony that the appellant had left
his phone in the room, from which, she called her parents, requesting
her mother to rescue her from there. The mother of the prosecutrix
deposed that she received call from her daughter who was uttering
“Mujhe Bachalo, Mujhe Bachalo”. She could not speak anything else.
When her husband returned from his job, she told him about the call
received from the prosecutrix, and thereafter, she along with her
husband went to the police station and lodged a report with the police.
However, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-4) deposed as if he
attended the call of prosecutrix. According to him, his daughter
informed him on telephone that she was living with the appellant in
the area of Lohagate, Amritsar. As per PW-11 SI Rajiv, he had put
the mobile No. 9781246116 on tracking in the ACP Office. From the
CDR, he found that the mobile number, from which the victim had
made call at her house, was in the name of Ram Kumar, son of Hari
Ram, resident of House No. 2221/11, Gali Abal, PS Lohgate, Amritsar
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
and the location of the said number was found in Lohgate, Amritsar.
The call detail record and the location report is Mark A (colly). PW-11
further deposed that on 27th January, 2013, they met Ram Kumar at
House No. 2221/11, and on interrogation, he disclosed that the
aforesaid number belongs to him, but for a long time, the said number
was being used by one lady Ms. Rani, who resides at Rajeev Nagar,
Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar. Prosecution neither proved the Customer
Application Form nor examined the service provider to confirm that
mobile No. 9781246116 was registered in the name of Ram Kumar.
The CDR and the location chart have also not been duly proved on
record. Ram Kumar has also not been examined to confirm that the
aforesaid number belonged to him or that the same was being used by
Ms. Rani. No evidence has been placed on record as to what
connection was there between Rani and Ram Kumar and whether the
appellant made phone call from the mobile number being used by
Rani. Thus, it may be seen that the investigation has been conducted
in a slip-shod manner, which makes the prosecution case doubtful, the
benefit of which goes to the appellant.
27. The law governing appeals against acquittal is well established.
The appellate court can re-appreciate the evidence and shall interfere
only when the findings of the Trial Court are perverse, manifestly
illegal, or grossly unjust. The Supreme Court in Ghurey Lal v. State
of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 observed that the presumption of
innocence in favour of the accused stands reinforced by an order of
acquittal, and unless the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court are
perverse, manifestly illegal, or wholly unreasonable, the appellate
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
court ought not to substitute its own view merely because another
view is possible. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
“69. The following principles emerge from the
cases above:
1. The appellate court may review the evidence
in appeals against acquittal under Sections
378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide
and the appellate court can re-appreciate the
entire evidence on record. It can review the
trial court’s conclusion with respect to both
facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until
proven guilty. The accused possessed this
presumption when he was before the trial
court. The trial court’s acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration
must be given to the trial court’s decision. This
is especially true when a witness’ credibility is
at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to
take a different view of the evidence. There
must also be substantial and compelling
reasons for holding that the trial court was
wrong.
70. In light of the above, the High Court and
other appellate courts should follow the well-
settled principles crystallised by number of
judgments if it is going to overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it
has “very substantial and compelling
reasons” for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the
appellate court would have “very substantial
and compelling reasons” to discard the trial
court’s decision. “Very substantial and
compelling reasons” exist when:
(i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard
to the facts is palpably wrong;
(ii) The trial court’s decision was based on
an erroneous view of law;
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
(iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to
result in “grave miscarriage of
justice”;
(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in
dealing with the evidence was patently
illegal;
(v) The trial court’s judgment was
manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence
or misread the material evidence or
has ignored material documents like
dying declarations/report of the
ballistic expert, etc.
(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative,
not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper
weight and consideration to the findings of the
trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached–
one that leads to acquittal, the other to
conviction–the High Courts/appellate courts
must rule in favour of the accused.”
28. Similarly, in Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in cases of acquittal,
there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. The relevant
portion of the judgment reads as under:-
“16. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in
case of acquittal, there is a double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly,
the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person
should be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved to be guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured an
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
certainly not weakened but reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court.”
29. Upon a holistic appreciation of the evidence, we find that the
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
view taken by the learned Trial Court is a plausible and reasonable
one based on the material on record. The prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The
findings of the Trial Court do not suffer from perversity or illegality
warranting interference.
30. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned
judgment dated 20th July, 2019 passed by the learned trial court
acquitting the respondent is affirmed.
31. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
32. The Bail Bond and the Surety submitted by the respondent are
hereby discharged.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
March 25, 2026/AK/RM
CRL.A. 264/2021 Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:25.03.2026
17:57
