IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 08.10.2025 + CRL.L.P. 582/2022 & CRL.M.A. 26035/2022 STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Petitioner versus DEVENDER SINGH RANA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State with SI Bharat Singh, PS Uttam Nagar.

For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Mr. Prince, Ms.

Ritu Kumari, Mr. Aaditya and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates.

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 10.05.2022 (hereafter ‘the impugned judgment’), in Sessions Case No. 441341/2016 arising out of FIR No. 607/2016, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar, whereby the learned Trial Court had acquitted the respondent of the offences under Sections 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).

2. Succinctly stated, a written complaint was given by victim ‘J’ aged 15 years against the respondent on 23.07.2016. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the respondent, who is stated to be a yoga teacher, had sexually assaulted the victim ‘J’ and her younger sister ‘M’ aged about 09 years. It is alleged that the victim ‘J’ and her sister ‘M’ were studying in classes XI and VII respectively. It is alleged that one day, the victim ‘J’ was told by her sister ‘M’ that the respondent was calling her. Thereafter, when the victim ‘J’ went to inquire about the same, the respondent asked her to come in the yoga room for the purpose of interaction. It is alleged that thereafter when the victim ‘J’ told that she had a class, the respondent asked her to come to the yoga room whenever she got free. Thereafter, when victim ‘J’ went to the yoga room, she found that the respondent was alone. It is alleged that thereafter, the respondent held victim ‘J’s hands and told her that she is very beautiful. It is alleged that the respondent further expressed that he liked her and allegedly asked her not to break friendship with him.

3. Thereafter, when the victim ‘J’ discussed the same with her sister ‘M’, it is alleged that her sister ‘M’ disclosed that the respondent had touched her chest and back. It is further alleged that the respondent inappropriately touched the victim ‘M’ and also removed her hair whenever it would fall on her face. It is alleged that the victims complained about the same to the school authorities, however, it was to no avail. Thereafter, the victims disclosed about the said incidents to their mother who thereafter asked them to wait for a response from the school authorities. Thereafter, when no action was taken by the school authorities, a written complaint was given by the father of the victims in the school on 02.07.2016. Subsequently, a written complaint was given by victim ‘J’ on 23.07.2016 which led to the registration of the subject FIR.

4. The respondent was charged for the offences under Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act.

5. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charged offences. It was noted that the version narrated by the victims were inter se contradictory and were marred with doubts. It was noted that in the first complaint given by the father of the victims to the Principal of the School on 02.07.2016, it was alleged that on 28.06.2016, the respondent after calling victim ‘J’ through victim ‘M’ had talked to victim ‘J’ in an indecent manner and that during such time, the respondent also inappropriately touched the victim ‘M’. It was noted that as per the complaint given by the father of the victims, the alleged act was committed on a single day and it was committed by the respondent while both the victims were present together in the room. It was noted that the said complaint was conspicuously silent on the alleged sexual assault committed on victim ‘J’.

6. The learned Trial Court noted that in the complain