IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 08.10.2025 + CRL.L.P. 531/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23968/2022 STATE ..... Petitioner versus SUBHASH ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State.

SI Manisha Sharma, PS Hauz Khas.

For the Respondents : Mr. Naveen Kumar Tripathi, Adv. through V.C.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking leave to challenge the judgment dated 06.10.2021 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) in Sessions Case No. 7808 of 2016 arising out of FIR No. 460/2016, registered at Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)/342/354A/354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 read with Section 3 and Section 12 read with Section 11 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent allegedly raped the prosecutrix, who was 15 years old at the time of the alleged incident. It is alleged that the respondent would follow the victim around and would try to talk to the victim against her wishes. It is alleged that the respondent kissed the victim, one year prior to the alleged incident.

3. It is alleged that on 16.05.2016, the parents of the victim had left their house to buy medicine, thereafter, the victim went to pick up her brother, who was playing on the stairs. It is alleged that at that time the respondent was standing near the stairs, whereafter, he pulled the victim and dragged her into his room.

4. It is alleged that the respondent bolted the room from inside and raped the victim. It is alleged that during the act, the respondent ejaculated on the right leg of the victim, thereafter, she went to wash herself.

5. It is alleged that the victim’s uncle noticed that she had gone missing and upon searching for her, the victim’s uncle knocked on the respondent’s door and allegedly, found the victim inside. It is alleged that, thereafter, the victim confided in her father and uncle about the alleged incident, who in turn informed the police which led to the registration of the present FIR.

6. The Learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(2)/342/354A/354D of IPC and Section 4 read with Section 3 and Section 12 read with Section 11 of the POCSO Act against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. The learned Trial Court, noting the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgment.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (‘APP’) for the State submitted that the impugned judgement is based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises, devoid of merits and as such cannot prima facie stand and thus, deserves to be set aside.

9. He submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the deposition of the victim, who consistently deposed against the respondent and provided specific date, place and time of the incident. He further submitted that the victim has supported the case of the prosecution and her testimony is supported by MLC. He submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the judgment titled Ganesan vs. State : (2020) 10 SCC 573, wherein it was held, inter alia, that conviction can be granted on the sole testimony of the victim in cases of rape.

10. He submitted that the victim girl was aged about 14 years at the time of commission of the alleged offence and her age was not disputed by the respondent. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the settled law that no corroborative evidence can be expected and the testimony of the victim is sufficient for conviction.

11. He submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the testimony of the father, who deposed that when he knocked on the door of respondent, the victim had come out of the room while weepin