##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 13th November, 2025

Pronounced on: 22nd December, 2025

+ CRL.A.1580/2025

STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

437, Lawyer‟s Chamber Block-1,

High Court of Delhi, New Delhi ......Petitioner

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State

with SI Achla PS Ranhola.

versus

UMESH KUMAR

S/o Sh. Dalveer Singh

R/o Village Makrand Garhi,

P.O Hasanpur, PS Nouhajhil,

District Mathura, U.P. ....Respondent

Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C has been filed on

behalf of the Petitioner/State to challenge the Judgment dated 25.03.2019 of

the learned ASJ who has acquitted the Respondent Umesh Kumar under

Section 363/366 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)

in Sessions Case No.53/2018 in case FIR No.196/2013 P.S. Ranhola.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that one Mr. A.U, father of the

Prosecutrix lodged a missing Complaint on 08.07.2013 that his daughter „A

@ C‟ aged 14 years was not found in the house in the intervening night of

07.07.2013 at 02:00 A.M. She could not be traced despite best efforts. On

Signature Not Verified

DigitallySigned By:RITA CRL.A.1580/2025 Page 1 of 10

SHARMA

Signing Date:23.12.2025

13:22:54

his Complaint, DD No.32A dated 08.07.2023 was registered on which

present FIR No.196/2013 under Section 363 IPC was registered on

08.07.2013.

3. During the investigation, on 12.07.2013 the Prosecutrix was found on

Uttam Nagar Bus Terminal. Her Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was

recorded, wherein she stated that the Accused had repeatedly forced her for

marriage. In the midnight of 07.07.2013, he had come to her house and

induced her to accompany him on the pretext of marriage. She remained at

his house till about 3:00 A.M and on her refusal, he left her at Uttam Nagar.

Her Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C was also recorded.

4. Accused was arrested and statements of the witnesses were recorded.

On completion of investigations, Chargesheet was filed for the offence

under Section 363/366 IPC.

5. The Charges were framed under Sections 363 and 366, on 28.03.2014

to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty.

6. The Prosecution in support of its case examined nine witnesses.

7. PW1, the Prosecutrix who deposed about the incident, as stated in the

Complaint. She proved her Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as

Ex.PW1/A.

8. PW2 Smt. Alka Koundanya, Principal, Rajdhani Public School, Vikas

Nagar, Hastsal, proved the School record of the Prosecutrix which is

Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. The Affidavit filed by the father of the child at

the time of her admission in the School is Ex.PW2/C.

9. PW3, the M.M proved the Statement of the Prosecutrix under Section

164 Cr.P.C dated 16.07.2013 which is Ex.PW1/A.

Signature Not Verified

DigitallySigned By:RITA CRL.A.1580/2025 Page 2 of 10

SHARMA

Signing Date:23.12.2025

13:22:54

10. PW7 AU father of the Prosecutrix, had deposed about the entire

incident and about making the Complaint to the parents on which FIR

Ex.PW4/B was registered.

11. PW4 ASI Virender Kumar was the Duty Officer who registered the

FIR Ex.PW4/B.

12. PW5 Sh. Harlal Yadav was the owner of the house in which the

Accused was residing as a tenant. He deposed that after registration of the

case, Uncle and father of the victim had come to his residence making an

enquiry about the Respondent and he assured full assistance to them.

13. PW6 Shiv Kumar was the owner who had rented out the house to the

Respondent in May or June, 2013.

14. PW9 SI Praveen was the initial Investigating Officer who got the

Statement of the Prosecutrix recorded. Thereafter, the investigation was got

handed over to PW8 SI Binod, Investigating Officer who completed the

investigations and filed the Chargesheet.

15. The Statement of the Respondent was recorded under Section 313

Cr.P.C in which he denied all the incriminating evidence and claimed his

innocence.

16. The learned ASJ in its detailed judgment dated 25.03.2019 held that

the Prosecution ha