Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
Ashok Kumar@AK – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRL.A. 55 of 2023 and CRL.M.A. 1231 of 2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 82 of 2023
Decided On : 02-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Chetan Bhardwaj, Ms. Priyal Bhardwaj and Mr. Priyanshu Vishwakarma, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP., Ms. Astha and Ms. Megha singh, Advocates (DHCLSC).

The conviction under the PoCSO Act and IPC was upheld based on credible victim testimony and consistent medical evidence, highlighting the lack of substantial grounds for false implication.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 (2) (f) and (i) - Conviction for sexual assault of minor stepdaughter affirmed - Prosecution established the charges beyond reasonable doubt through testimonies and corroborative medical evidence - Non-compliance with Section 232 Cr.P.C. did not result in prejudice - Sentence modified from 20 years to 15 years. (Paras 1, 19, 20)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - Burden lies on the defence to prove false implication - Minor discrepancies in testimony of victim do not undermine credibility. (Paras 6, 18)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under the PoCSO Act and IPC for sexually assaulting his minor stepdaughter, with the incident occurring at their residence. Prosecution relied on victim testimony and medical examination to establish the case.

Findings of Court:
The trial court’s conviction was supported by credible witness accounts and medical findings indicating the victim's compromised state.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused and the credibility of the victim's testimony amid claims of false implication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the relevance of victim testimony and corroborative medical evidence while addressing claims of false implication and the procedural non-compliance, concluding that it did not affect the trial's integrity.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction affirmed, sentence reduced to 15 years.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentencing process overview. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. court’s considerations on evidence and implications. (Para 6 , 10 , 18)
3. disputes over witness credibility and evidence. (Para 8 , 9)
4. assessment of medical evidence concerning the victim's condition. (Para 16 , 17)
5. final judgment modification and sentencing rationale. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the sole accused in SC No. 561 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (the PoCSO Act) Rohini Courts, Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 23.08.2022 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act and Section 376 (2) (f) and (i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC ).

2. The prosecution case is that on 26.06.2017 at N-9A-33, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, New Delhi, the appellant/accused outraged the modesty and committed penetrative sexual assault on PW1, his minor stepdaughter.

2.1 On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIS of PW1, given on 12.07.2017, Crime No. 273/2017, Adarsh Nagar Police Station, that is, Ext. P-1, FIS was registered by PW6, Woman Sub- Inspector (WSI). PW6 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act.

3. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under 207 Cr.PC. After hearing both sides, the trial court as per order dated 08.11.2017, framed a charge under Section 354 , Section 376 (2) (f) and (i) IPC and Sections 6 , 10 of the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exts. PW1/A-C, PW4/A-C, PW5/A, PW6/B-C, P-1, P-2 and P-5 were marked in support of the case.

5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC 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 been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of PW2, his mother in-law.

6. After questioning the accused under Section. 313 CrPC, compliance of Section 232 CrPC 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 with 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. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

7. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2022 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) and (i) IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act and hence sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to a fine of ₹8,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days. Aggrieved, the appellant/accused has preferred this present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the latter has been falsely implicated by PW1 at the behest of PW2, the maternal grandmother of PW1. It was submitted that there are several contradictions and improvements in the testimony of PW1 and PW2. The exact date of the incident is also not clear. PW2 had sought the assist

Click Here to Read the rest of this document