Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. A. 1048 of 2017
Decided On : 02-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Sanjay Meena. Ms. Sanya Kumar, Advocate for Victim. Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta, Mr. Shekhar Anand Gupta, Ms. Mansi Yadav, Ms. Shivani, and Ms. Navneet Kaur, Advocates.

The court ruled that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when age determination and evidence is inconclusive; conviction not sustained due to lack of substantiation of charges.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 366, 376, and 323 - Judgment of conviction and sentence appealed against - Appellant sentenced to RI for 4 years under Section 366, 7 years under Section 376, and 3 months under Section 323 - All sentences to run concurrently, with fines imposed. (Paras 1, 30)

(B) Age of Consent - Statutory age of consent as per Section 375 IPC previously was 16 years - Radiological age assessment suggested upper age limit at 16 years - Benefit of doubt in favor of accused as prosecution could not establish essential ingredients for conviction - Factors including lack of evidence of coercion and discrepancies in witness testimonies weigh against conviction. (Paras 12, 16, 27)

Facts of the case:
Appellant accused of kidnapping and assaulting a minor; prosecutrix reported as missing, subsequently recovered by police; absence of birth proof led to bony age estimation. (Paras 2, 3, 11)

Findings of Court:
Prosecution failed to substantiate charges, leading to acquittal of the appellant. (Pars 27, 28)

Issues: Whether prosecutrix was underage, nature of consent, and evidentiary inconsistencies. (Paras 18, 19, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: Given uncertainties in age determination and inconsistencies of evidence, benefit of doubt awarded to appellant; prosecutrix's freedom of movement undermines claims of coercion. (Paras 17, 24)

Result: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges.

Table of Content
1. conviction details and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defense arguments regarding consent and age. (Para 4 , 5)
3. witness testimonies corroborating events. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. importance of age determination. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. legal interpretation of age of consent. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. analysis of prosecutrix's testimony and inconsistencies. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
7. examination of medical evidence not supporting prosecution. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
8. final decision: acquittal of appellant. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2017 and the order on sentence dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned ASJ-SFTC (South East), Saket Courts, Delhi in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 370/2010 registered under Sections 366 /376/323 IPC at P.S. Okhla Industrial Area.

Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years along with payment of fine of Rs.15,000/- , in default whereof he would undergo SI for a period of 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC ; RI for a period of 7 years along with payment of fine of Rs.20,000, in default whereof he would undergo SI for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 376 ; and SI for a period of 3 months along with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for 1 month, for the offence punishable under Section 323 . All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was granted to the appellant.

Out of the fine realized in view of the above sentence, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was directed to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.

2. Pithily put, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2010, the father of the prosecutrix reported at the police station that his daughter, aged about 15 years, had gone missing. She had been staying with her aunt in a jhuggi and left the house on 03.11.2010 without informing anyone. The complainant suspected that the appellant, who lived nearby and had vacated his jhuggi on 02.11.2010, had kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marrying her. On this statement, the subject FIR was registered. On 26.11.2010, the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of the appellant in Village Mani, District Aligarh, U.P. and was medically examined the following day. In the absence of any birth proof, her bony age was determined to be between 15 years 8 months and 16 years 4 months. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she alleged that the appellant forcibly took her away on the pretext of marriage, subjected her to physical assault, and committed sexual assault upon her. The appellant, having initially absconded, was declared a proclaimed offender on 17.07.2012, and was subsequently arrested on 04.12.2015. Following a potency test, charges were framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 366 /376/323 IPC and Section 174 -A on 19.02.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecutrix herself was examined as PW-1. Her father, uncle, and aunt were examined as PW-2, PW-3, and PW-14 respectively. Raghubir Singh and Vijay Singh, examined as PW-5 and PW-7 respectively, are public persons from village Dudupur, from where the prosecutrix was recovered. Dr. Chithra (PW-6) proved the prosecutrix's MLC and Dr. Sanjeet Nayak (PW- 15) proved the prosecutrix's radiology report and deposed as to her bony age. The I.O. of the case, SI S. S. Sandhu was examined as PW-11. The remaining witnesses are police officials who deposed to various aspects of the investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment, contended that the physical relations established between the parties were consensual. He submitted th