$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 31st October, 2025

Pronounced on : 12th November, 2025

+ CRL.A. 1039/2014

STATE .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP for State.

W/SI Annu Kumari, PS Nihal Vihar.

versus

INDERPAL .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, Mr. Shashwat Tiwari, Ms. Awantika Shankar, Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Mr. Prasannr, Ms. Vani Singhal, Mr. Pulkit, Mr. Rajat Pandey, Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms. Vivedita, Advs

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

J U D G M E N T

REPORTABLE

Per DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 16.07.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (West), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in SC No.74/12, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent of the charges under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), 1860.

2. The genesis of the case lies in the narration of an incident, which the prosecutrix ‘M’ gave to her mother Dropdi (PW-6) on 14.09.2011, informing, inter alia, that a person residing near their house held her, carried to his room, undressed her and sexually assaulted her.

3. The mother observed that the salwar of the girl M was having blood spots and noticed that her private part had turned red and was having some blood.

4. At about 9:00 p.m., when her father came home, they searched for the accused, but failed. However, on the next day, at about 9:00 a.m. the girl and her mother Dropdi (PW-6) were standing outside their house, when she pointed towards the accused who was coming on his bicycle and said that he was the uncle who had taken her to his room and did the wrong.

5. The accused was immediately apprehended by Dropdi (PW-6) and her uncle Gopal; the police was called and then, the accused was handed over to the police.

6. Said call was noted by the police at Entry No. 19 (Ex.- PW11/A) of the Daily Diary dated 15.09.2011, in furtherance whereof, the police came, arrested the accused and got his medical examination done. Medical examination of the victim ‘M’ was also got conducted.

7. The police recorded the statement of Dropdi-mother of the victim (PW-6), landlady-Smt. Parvati (PW-9), Kailash-father of the victim (PW-7).

8. As the medical examination corroborated the allegations levelled by the victim, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was gotten recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.

9. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet inculpating the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’), 1860 was filed. As the accused denied the charge of 376 framed against him, the case was put to trial.

10. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also recorded, wherein the accused denied the allegation and the evidence led by the prosecution, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.

11. On going through the oral and ocular evidence on record, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge of sexual assault, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons for which such conclusion was arrived at are outlined hereinfra:-

(i) In her Court statement, the prosecutrix stated that the uncle pulled off her underwear, laid her on the floor and thereafter laid upon her body and except that he did nothing; which act according to the Trial Court did not constitute ‘sexual assault’.

(ii) During the cross-examination, the prosecutrix (PW-3) had deposed that she was asked by her mother to say that uncle laid upon her, which led the Trial Court to hold that the prosecutrix was tutored.

(iii) During her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex. PW-13/B, 13/C), she had stated that the uncle (accused) entered his urinal organ into her urinal organ and she felt pain, w