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

2024 Supreme(Del) 975

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, MANOJ JAIN
State – Appellant
Versus
P.D.D. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Yamini Vats, PS Patel Nagar in Crl. A. 295/2021, Ms. Tara Narula and Mr. Harshvardhan Jain, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra, Mr. Kailash Kr. Jha, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Aditya, Ms. Shweta Priya, Mr. Anish Raj, Mr. Deep Raj, Ms. Renu, Ms. Shivani Verma, Ms. Samishti Solomons, Mr. Nitin Kr. Nayak and Ms. Tripti Jugal, Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State with SI Yamini Vats, PS Patel Nagar. Mr. Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Mr. Dipak Raj, Mr. Bibhuti Bhushan Mishra, Mr. Kailash Kr. Jha, Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Mishra, Mr. Aditya, Ms. Shweta Priya, Mr. Anish Raj, Mr. Deep Raj, Ms. Renu, Ms. Shivani Verma, Ms. Samishti Solomons, Mr. Nitin Kr. Nayak and Ms. Tripti Jugal, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ JAIN, J.

1. Respondent PDD (name withheld) was charged and tried for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon his own daughter and vide impugned judgment[Judgment dated 07.06.2019 passed by Learned Trial Court in FIR No. 14/2013, PS Patel Nagar], he has been acquitted of all the charges.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, State had filed petition seeking leave to appeal. Such petition was registered as Crl. L.P. 651/2019. Leave to appeal was granted on 06.10.2021 and resultantly, said petition was re-registered as Criminal Appeal No. 295/2021.

3. Simultaneously, the daughter of respondent, who would be referred to as victim in the present judgment, has also filed appeal against the same judgment. Her mother and brother are co-appellants. Their such appeal has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 459/2020.

4. Since both the appeals emanate from the same judgment and since similar contentions have been raised therein, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

FACTUL MATRIX

5. Accused (respondent herein) used to work as security guard and his wife (PW3) was also working as security guard. They had two children, a daughter (victim herein

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top