* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 29^th October, 2025 Pronounced on: 09th December, 2025 + CRL.A.1516/2025 & CRL.M.A.11346/2019 THE STATE, Govt. of NCT of Delhi .....Appellant Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State.

Versus BHARAT S/o Sh. Gauri Shankar, R/o E-141, Gali No. 17, Vidhyapati Nagar, Kirari, Delhi .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed challenging the Judgment of the learned M.M., Delhi dated 20.12.2018 vide which the Respondent-Accused has been acquitted in case FIR No. 883/2015 registered at P.S. Aman Vihar under Sections 354A/354D/323/341/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.2015, the Complainant, Ms. ‘P’ (Prosecutrix) came to the Police Station and stated that the Respondent-Accused who resides in her Gali, had been following her on her way to school since last 15 days. Whenever he met her, he stopped her on her way and used to threaten that he would stab her with the knife if she did not say “I love you” to him. It was further stated in the Complaint that the Respondent had threatened the Complainant that he would cut her face with blade if she did not love him and further threatened to kill her family members.

3. The Complainant stated that she was so frightened and scared that under immense pressure, she inserted the SIM card given by the respondent- accused in her Mama’s mobile phone and he used to send “I love you” messages from the numbers 750300569 and 7531092039. She further stated that because of fear from the Respondent-Accused, she had concealed all these facts from her family members, but when she was extremely tortured, she disclosed everything to her family members and lodged the complaint in the Police station.

4. On her Complaint, FIR No. 883/2015 under Sections

354A/354D/341/506 IPC was registered at P.S. Aman Vihar.

5. During investigation, statement of the Prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. On completion of the investigation, Chargesheet was filed in the Court.

6. The Charges were framed against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 354A/354D/323/341/506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The Prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses

8. PW1 was Ms. ‘P’, the Prosecutrix/Complainant; PW2, SI Manisha Sharma, who was the Investigating Officer of the case proved the Rukka. PW3, HC Krishan Kumar was the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation after registration of the FIR and proved the arrest and personal search memo of the accused, and PW4 was HC Rajkumar, MHC(M) who proved the relevant entries in respect of the deposit of the SIM handed over by the complainant to the Investigating Officer i.e. Ex.PW4/A.

9. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the Respondent-Accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied all the incriminating evidence

10. The learned M.M., vide the impugned Judgment dated 20.12.2018 considered the evidence of the prosecution and concluded that the evidence of the Complainant, did not prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that the Complainant’s brother and her uncle/Ravi Kant Pandey had not been examined by the Prosecution. Benefit of doubt was given to the Respondent-Accused who was acquitted.

11. Aggrieved by the said Acquittal of the Respondent/State has preferred the present Appeal wherein the impugned Judgment has been challenged on the ground that the testimony of the PW1, the Prosecutrix has not been appreciated in the correct perspective. She had been consistent in her testimony and there was no material contradiction in her statement and it needed no further corroboration. It was not appreciated that the