* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 07.11.2025

+ CRL.A. 1095/2019

KRISHNA NAND TIWARI .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, (DHCLSC) Ms. Vanya Chhabra, Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Harshwardhan Pushkin Sharma, Advs.

versus

STATE .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Shyam Bir Singh, Okhla Indl. Area,

Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta, (Amicus Curiae)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred seeking to assail the judgment of conviction dated 11.07.2019 and order on sentence dated 30.08.2019, vide which the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default whereof, he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

2. Brief facts in nutshell are that on 13.04.2013, DD No. 19 came to be recorded at P.S Okhla Industrial Area, wherein, it was alleged that the accused who at the time was running a molding machine in the building where the victim used to reside, had committed “Ched Chaad” with her. In the complaint, it was alleged that after taking the victim to his room, the accused tried to disrobe himself, and when she made a hue and cry due to this, she was allowed to leave. Further, the appellant had threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. On receipt of the complaint, the FIR under Section 354 IPC came to be registered and medical examination of the victim was carried out on the next day i.e., 14.04.2013. Subsequently, on 29.06.2013, the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. alleged that the appellant while committing the offence also tore her clothes and attempted to penetrate his private part.

The statement of mother of the victim was also recorded by the police. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed under Section 354/376 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court, however, framed the charge under Section 6 POCSO Act.

3. Mr. Adit S. Pujari, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment by contending that reading of the first statement of the victim did not make out the ingredients for the offence under Section 6 POCSO Act in any manner. Further, he contends that even the MLC also does not record any external injury or bleeding on the private parts of the victim. Lastly, he contends that the victim in her subsequent statement under Section 164 CrPC and court deposition has materially improved upon the allegations, primarily, on account of monetary transactions between the family of the victim and the appellant.

4. Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP for State as well as Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae appointed to represent the victim, however, have defended the impugned judgment and disputed the contentions. It is submitted that the testimony of the child victim is categorical. The child victim, who was aged about 10 years and 2 months old on the date of the incident, has clearly and consistently narrated the acts committed by the appellant upon her. The victim had informed her mother about the facts of the incident who has also deposed on similar lines.

5. As noted above, the investigation commenced with the lodging of the complaint on 13.04.2013. In the said complaint, the victim alleged only “Ched Chad”. On the following day, the statement of the mother was recorded, wherein she stated that the child victim had complained to her that the appellant had confined her in his room and engaged in “ched-chad”, and when he began disrobing himself, the victim raised an alarm, upon which she was allowed to leave. To the same extent is the history of assault noted at the time of the child victim’s medical examination in the ML