$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: April 09, 2025 + CRL.L.P. 341/2017 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Mahesh Kumar P.S. Kalkaji Versus DEEPAK KUMAR PASWAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Srivastav, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

CRL.L.P. 341/2017 :

1. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been filed on behalf of the State against the Judgment dated 30.08.2016 whereby Respondent has been acquitted of the offences by learned Additional Session Judge in case FIR No.638/2014, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that there is cogent evidence of the Prosecutrix which is corroborated by her mother, to prove that sexual relationship was established by the Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANIL Page 1 of 10 Respondent/accused under the false promise of marriage, which has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.

3. For the reasons stated, the Petition is allowed. Appeal be registered.

4. The Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of.

CRL.APPL.No.________/2025 (To be numbered by the Registry)

5. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C has been preferred against the Judgment dated 30.08.2016 vide which the Respondent has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 376/506 IPC in FIR No.

638/2014, registered at Police Station Kalkajee, New Delhi.

6. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that the Prosecutrix gave a Complaint dated 25.07.2014 wherein she stated that she first met the Respondent in March, 2013 at Kalkajee Mandir. They exchanged their numbers and started talking to each other, which continued for one month.

They then fell in love with each other and started meeting.

7. On the asking of the Respondent, she went to Tigri, from where the Respondent took her to a Hotel near his house at Khoda Colony, Ghaziabad, where he established physical relations with her. She claimed that thereafter, they had physical relationship a number of times at different places. During this period, she became pregnant twice but the Respondent gave her some medicine for her abortion. Thereafter, when she asked him for marriage, he stated that he would get married after some months. He also told her not to disclose about their relationship to any person or else they would not be able to get married and would be killed. This scenario continued for about one year but thereafter, the Respondent denied to marry her. The Complainant alleged that the last time they had physical relationship was in the month of Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANIL Page 2 of 10 March, 2014.

8. On 20.07.2013 at about 02:00 PM, she went to the house of the Respondent where in front of his family members he assaulted, abused and threatened to kill her. He threatened her that he would get her lifted from her house and make her vanish.

9. On her Complaint, FIR No. 638/2014, under Section 376 IPC was registered at Police Station Kalkaji. After due investigation, Charge-Sheet was filed before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Charge under Sections 376/506 IPC was framed on 15.10.2014, to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The Complainant was examined as PW-6 and her mother was examined as PW-7.

10. PW-7 mother of the Prosecutrix deposed that on 20.07.2014 her daughter told her about her relationship with the Respondent and that he has refused to marry her. The Prosecutrix also disclosed to PW-7 that she had been given beatings, abuses and threat to be killed by the Respondent.

11. The learned ASJ vide detailed Judgment dated 30.08.2016 acquitted the Respondent under all the charges.

12. The Order of acquittal dated 30.