##PAGE1##

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 17^th December, 2025

Date of Decision: 20^th December, 2025

+ CRL.A. 1330/2014

PREM PRAKASH .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Kunal Rawat, Ms. Prity Kumari,

and Ms. Ritu Gaur, Advocates.

versus

STATE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State

with Mr. Sunil Singh Rawat, Mr.

Arsalan Naik and Mr. Siddharth

Goyal, Advocates with SI Barham

Prakash, P.S. Sultan Puri.

Ms. Sanya Kumar, Advocates

(DHCLSC) for Victim.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C”) has been preferred

against judgment of conviction dated 17^th May, 2014 (hereinafter referred to

as the “impugned judgment”) and against order on sentence dated 22^nd May,

2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order on sentence”) passed

by the learned ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the

“Trial Court”) in Sessions Case bearing no. 75/2013 arising out of the FIR

bearing no. 192/2013, registered at P.S. Sultan Puri, Delhi.

2. The appellant vide the impugned judgment was convicted for the

offence under Section 9(m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

CRL.A.1330/2014 Page1of9

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:NAMITA

DHYANI

Signing Date:20.12.2025

15:18:30

Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO”). The appellant vide the

impugned order on sentence was sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of 05 years under Section 10 of POCSO,

alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the

appellant was sentenced to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a

period of 01 month.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9^th March, 2013 at

about 1:00 PM, the victim, aged about 05 years, was alone in her house. Her

father was watching television in a nearby room of his neighbour. Taking

advantage of the fact that the victim was alone in her room, the appellant,

who was the son of Landlord of parents of the victim, committed penetrative

sexual assault upon the victim. The father of the victim, namely, Sh. Pardesi

Das heard her cries and rushed to the room in which the victim had been

playing and saw that the appellant had removed underwear of the victim and

had also opened the chain of his pants and was lying down on the victim. On

seeing the father of the victim, appellant ran away from there. On the

statement of the father of the victim, the FIR was registered. The victim was

thereafter taken to the SGM Hospital for medical examination. The

statement of the victim was got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. The

appellant was arrested.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed.

Charge under Section 3(a) of POCSO punishable under Section 4 of POCSO

was framed against the appellant on the allegations that on 9^th March, 2013,

at about 1:00 PM, at jhuggi no. 647, F-6 Block, HGI Labour Colony,

Sultanpuri, he committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, to

which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove

CRL.A.1330/2014 Page2of9

Signature Not Verified

Signed By:NAMITA

DHYANI

Signing Date:20.12.2025

15:18:30

its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. The statement of the

appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, wherein the

appellant denied incriminating evidences, pleaded innocence and claimed

false implication. The trial resulted in conviction under Section 9(m) of

POCSO for the aggravated sexual assault. The prosecution failed to prove

the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(a) of POCSO

punishable under Section 4 of POCSO. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by

the said conviction, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, learned APP for

the State and the learned Counsel for the victim and have examined the

record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has

passed t