* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 12.12.2025

Pronounced on : 15.12.2025 Uploaded on : 15.12.2025

+ CRL.A. 653/2023

SHIV PRASHAD @ KARTARU .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Bhavesh Seth and Mr. Siddharth

Kaushal, Advocates

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with

SI Rinki

Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for victim CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been instituted against the impugned judgment dated 09.11.2022 and order on sentence dated 13.03.2023 passed by ASJ, FTSC (POCSO) District North, Rohini, New Delhi in SC No. 58889/2016 arising out of FIR No. 868/2015 under Sections 323/376/506 IPC and

Section 6 of POCSO Act registered at PS. S.P. Badli, Delhi.

2. The applicant was convicted for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376/323 IPC and directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment

(S.I.) for a period of five days, for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant was also directed to undergo R.I. for a period of two months for offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court on

28.05.2025.

4. The prosecution case, in a nutshell was that the prosecutrix ‘S’ came to the police station on 17.07.2015, and gave a written complaint, in which she stated that the appellant used to frequent her neighbour and resided in a nearby Jhuggi. In November 2013, he took her to his Jhuggi and committed wrong act with her. He threatened her and established sexual relations with her till January 2014. She became pregnant. When her family came to know, her relatives took her to the village of the appellant on 10.06.2014. She was married to the appellant and resided with him. She also gave premature birth to a child on 22.08.2014, who died in 5 days. The appellant then left her with her parents. She claimed to be 16 years old at the time when the appellant first established relations with her.

5. Charges were framed under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376/506(II)/323 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In trial, a total of 20 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. The child victim ‘S’ was examined as PW1, her aunt as PW2, mother as PW3 and brother as PW8. For proving the age of victim, Sh Mukesh, the teacher who proved the admission register was examined as PW6. Dr. A.K. Gupta who deposed to the prosecutrix delivering a child was examined as PW10. Dr. Rashmi, who proved the MLC of the prosecutrix, was examined as PW14. The rest of witnesses were formal in nature who deposed as to various aspects of investigation. The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, claimed false implication.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the relations between him and the prosecutrix were consensual and she was an adult at the time. It is submitted that her age was not conclusively proved before the Trial Court and the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to him. He further submits that the MLC of the prosecutrix does not support the conviction under Section 323 IPC.

7. Learned APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for the victim, have opposed the present appeal. They contend that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Amicus Curae (Pro bono) fairly states that the Trial Court held that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant was consensual, but in view of her minority, her consent is meaningless.

8. The prosecutrix was examined as PW1. She said that she had gotten befriended with the appellant, who used to live near their house. She got married to him on 10