Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Mukesh Singhal – Appellant
Versus
State (Nct Of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.A. 192 of 2016
Decided On : 20-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal filed under section 374 cr.p.c. (Para 1) |
| 2. allegations of abduction and rape of pw1. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. charge framed against the accused under relevant ipc sections. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. accused's denial of charges and the legal compliance issue. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. witnesses examined and defense presented. (Para 8) |
| 6. prosecution's argument against alleged inconsistencies. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. defense counterarguments regarding prosecution evidence. (Para 11) |
| 8. evidence evaluation and testimony of pw1. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 9. assessment of kidnapping charges based on pw1's testimony. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 10. medical evidence supporting the claim of sexual assault. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 11. minor status of pw1 and its legal implications. (Para 19) |
| 12. sentence application after conviction under ipc. (Para 21) |
| 13. outcome of the appeal and modified sentence of imprisonment. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole accused in SC No. 89/2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 28.01.2016 and order on sentence dated 30.01.2016 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections363, 506 Part II and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ).
2. The prosecution case is that on 04.08.2010 at about 4:15 PM outside Bharti College, Janakpuri, New Delhi the appellant/accused forcibly pulled PW1, inside his car and threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm. Thereafter, the accused raped her inside the car.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIS of PW1, given on 04.08.2010, crime no. 248/2010, Moti Nagar Police station, that is, Ext. PW6/A was registered by PW6 Sub-Inspector. PW14, Sub- Inspector conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 506 and 376 IPC .
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 as per order dated 14.12.2010 framed a Charge under Sections 363 , 506 Part II and 376 IPC , which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exts. PW1/A-E, PW1/DX, PW2/A-B, PW3/A, PW4/A-B, PW5/A, PW6/A-B, PW8/A-B, PW9/A, PW11/A-F, PW12/A, PW14/A-F, PW15/A-D, PW16/A, P-1, P-2, P3, Mark A and Mark X were 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. He submitted that he had just given lift to PW1. He never threatened or raped her.
7. 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 CrPC 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 the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (SeeMoidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.
8. On behalf of the defence, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts. DW1/A1-12, DW2/A and DW3/A were marked in support of the case.
9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2016 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 363 , 506 Part II and 376 IPC . Vide order on sentence d
The court affirmed that consent of a minor is irrelevant in rape cases, reinforcing statutory protections and addressing evidential credibility.
Kidnapping and rape – Reliance on emotional state of victim as a proxy for corroboration of allegations would be both legally unsound and procedurally inappropriate.
A conviction for sexual assault cannot be upheld where the victim's testimony contains material inconsistencies, suggesting a consensual relationship rather than coercion.
The conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC was overturned due to insufficient evidence of lack of consent and significant doubts raised by the circumstantial evidence.
The appellate court upheld the victim's minority and the accused's guilt for kidnapping and sexual assault, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn ac....
The sufficiency of solitary evidence in cases of sexual offences and the requirement for consistency and trustworthiness in such testimony.
The conviction in sexual assault cases can be based solely on the victim's reliable testimony, irrespective of physical injury evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the evidence supported the conviction for kidnapping, it was insufficient to establish the allegations of rape and sexual assault due to....
The court upheld the conviction for sexual offences against a minor, confirming that intimidation can justify delays in lodging an FIR while the evidence for the charges, including threats and action....
The judgment reinforces the legal principle that the exploitation of a position of trust, particularly by a teacher towards a minor, constitutes a serious offense under both the IPC and the POCSO Act....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
