$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 125/2022 RAJ BAHADUR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Dhruva Bhagat, Advocate with appellant through V.C. from jail versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with Inspector Joscpha K. And Inspector Manju Jha Mr. Kumar Shailabh, Advocate for victim CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 04.11.2025

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2020 and order on sentence dated 23.10.2021 passed by the learned ASJ (FTSC) (POCSO), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 1627/2016 arising out of FIR No. 378/2015 registered under Sections 376/354/323 IPC and Sections 6/10 POCSO at P.S. Sarita Vihar.

Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 14 years along with fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for 3 months, for the offence punishable under Section 6 POCSO. The appellant was also extended the benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. This case arises from a complaint lodged by the victim against her father, the appellant herein, alleging that he had been sexually assaulting her for about 5 years. The matter came to light on 08.05.2015, when the victim confided in her classmates about the ordeal she had been facing. Upon learning of it, her classmates informed the school teacher, who in turn apprised the principal. The principal called the victim to her office, where she narrated the incident, following which the matter was promptly reported to the police. The child victim disclosed in her complaint that the appellant used to molest her in the night when the rest of the family members were asleep and that on the previous night itself, he had removed her clothes, pressed her breasts, and beaten her when she resisted his advances.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in support of its case. The child victim was examined as PW-1 after the Trial Court recorded its satisfaction as to her competency as a witness. She deposed that her father used to touch her inappropriately and insert his finger into her private parts, and also used to ask her to touch his private parts. He gave her beatings, threatening her not to disclose the same to anyone. She had told the same to her mother, but upon her mother confronting her father, he flatly denied it, and her mother believed him. She had also told her brother about it, which led to a quarrel between the child victim’s brother and their mother, after which the child victim was hopeful that such acts would not be repeated, but to no avail. On 07.05.2015, the appellant again put his hands inside her clothes, touched her breasts, and pressed her thighs. The next morning, in school, she started weeping. On being asked by her classmates why she was weeping, she narrated the acts of her father to them, who in turn told their teacher, who informed the principal. The principal called the child victim to her office and, after some conversation, they informed the police. She gave a written complaint (Ex.

PW-1/A), whereafter the appellant was apprehended by the police, and the child victim was taken to the hospital for her medical examination. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was then recorded.

In her cross-examination, she stated that she was studying in 5^th class when her father started sexually assaulting her. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated her father at the instance of her boyfriend, as he did not approve of their desire to get married to each other.

4. PW-2, PW-4, and PW-5, the teachers and the principal of the child victim’s school, supported the prosecution case by corroborating the chain of events as disclosed by the child victim, including her disclosure to her friends, who informed the teacher, who in turn apprised the principal, the subsequent reporting to the police,