STATE vs SONU @ PARMINDER - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 296

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
STATE – Appellant
Versus
SONU @ PARMINDER – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Ms. Divya Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. S.B. Dandapani

Table of Content
1. appeal against acquittal of accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of kidnapping and rape. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 12)
3. need for ossification tests in age verification. (Para 8 , 28)
4. importance of corroborative evidence for age determination. (Para 9 , 11 , 24 , 30)
5. appeal dismissed sustaining acquittal. (Para 34)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh J.,

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’) challenging the acquittal of the Respondent- Sonu @ Parminder i.e., the Accused vide order and judgment dated 9^th January, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

3. This appeal arises out ofFIR No.255/2010 dated 9^th December, 2010 registered at Police Station-Nihal Vihar under Sections 363 /376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ IPC ’), which was registered and dealt with as Sessions Case No.1/2013. The Respondent- Mr. Sonu @ Parminder i.e., the Accused, was charge-sheeted by Police Station- Nihal Vihar under /376 of the .

4. The allegation in