SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
The State (Gnct Of Delhi) – Petitioner
Versus
Suraj - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 25 of 2024
Decided on : 12-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajkumar, APP
For the Respondent:Mr Kishor Kumar Mishra and Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocates

The court emphasized the need for careful handling of minor victim testimonies in sexual offense cases, stating that charges should be framed if sufficient suspicion exists.

Headnote:This judgment addresses the petition of the State seeking to overturn an order discharging the accused from charges of sexual offenses against a minor. The court examined the factual context and the legal framework, concluding that the evidence warranted framing charges despite the earlier court's decision. The state argued that the child victim's testimony was sufficient to warrant trial and that the lower court's reliance on CCTV footage was misplaced at the charge stage. The court determined that the established allegations justified moving forward with charges under the relevant statutes. The ruling emphasizes the careful consideration required in cases of alleged sexual offenses against minors.

Result: The impugned order dated 05.08.2023 is thus set aside.

Table of Content
1. judgment initiated for setting aside discharge of accused. (Para 1)

JUDGMENT :

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner-State seeks setting aside of order dated 05.08.2023 [hereafter "impugned order‟] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-06/POCSO, Shahadra, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Sessions Court‟], whereby the respondent-accused was discharged case arising out of FIR No. 127/2022, registered on 26.02.2022, at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354D/354/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter "IPC‟] and Sections 10/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter "POCSO Act‟].

2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR was registered on the statement of the minor victim "J‟, aged about 10 years and a student of 5th standard. She informed the police that she was aware of the concept of good touch and bad touch, having been taught about the same in school. She alleged that a boy named Suraj, who used to sit with his father at a jeweller‟s shop, had been troubling her for the last one month. According to her, about 4-5 days prior to the lodging of the complaint, at around 3-4 PM, when she had gone to feed the dogs, the accused had touched her breasts and hips. Thereafter, he had allegedly asked her to sit with him on his motorcycle, to be friends with him, and had made obscene gestures with his lips and eyes. She further alleged that he would stalk her whenever she went to feed the dogs. It was also alleged that about a week prior to the complaint, when she was passing by his shop, the accused had removed his pants and underwear and made obscene gestures towards her. She had also narrated the said incident to her mother. She also told the police that she had not sustained any injury. Thereafter, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate, wherein she reiterated her allegations. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the concerned court for the commission of the alleged offences.

3. The learned Sessions Court, after hearing arguments on charge, passed the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 discharging the accused/respondent. The relevant observations of the Sessions Court are as under:

“1. Heard on charge.

2. The allegation levelled against accused Suraj in the FIR are that or 5 days before 26.02.2022 (date of registration of FIR) when the victim was, at about 3-4 p.m., passing through a lane (gali), she was inappropriately touched by the accused, in that lane, touched her hips and breasts. It is also alleged that the accused pressed her breasts there.

3. The CCTV footage of the place of incident had been collected by the IO. The IO had collected CCTV footage for 21.02.2022 and 22.02.2022. No incident as alleged in the FIR is found to have taken place upon having seen the footages. The CCTV footages were played in the Court today and all the concerned present saw the same.

4. The FIR is delayed. The exact date of commission of offence was not informed to the police - neither in the FIR nor in response to the notice made by the IO to the complainant and her mother in this regards.

5. It is also alleged that about one month prior to 26.02.2022, one day, when the victim was passing by the shop of the accused, the accused stripped naked and exhibited his body to the victim.

5.1 The co-ordinates of time of commission of this alleged act are not provided by the victim. The reference of time is vague and information delayed. There is no material on record to substantiate the accusation.

6. The accused Suraj s/o Sh. Rajeev r/o 1/7319, Gali Mandir Marg, East Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi, is accordingly discharged in the present case. His bail bond/surety bond, if any, also hereby discharged. Original documents of the accused, if any, be returned after cancellation of endorsement...”

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top