* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 19.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 22.01.2026 + CRL.A. 74/2025 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 134/2025 ISLAM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gautam khazanchi and Ms. Aditi Kukreja, Advocates.

Mr. Anubhav Singh, Mr. Nitin Kumar and Ms. Maria Mary, Advocates.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Nagendra Kumar, PS – Sunlight Colony.

Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate (DHCLSC) for victim.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Sections 374(2) Cr.P.C. and 415 of the BNSS has been filed by the accused in SC No. 2278/2016 on the file of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act), South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi challenging the judgment dated 10.07.2024, as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 506 IPC and Section 6 of PoCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case is that about 5 to 6 days before

11.05.2015, the accused kidnapped PW1, a minor girl aged 8 years, from lawful guardianship, took her to his room, confined her there and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. The accused is also alleged to have threatened PW1 with dire consequences in the event she revealed the incident to others. Hence, as per the final report/ chargesheet, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act.

3. Based on Ext. PW1/A, First Information Statement (FIS)

of PW1, recorded on 11.05.2015, crime 316/2015, Sunlight Colony Police Station, i.e. Ext. P2 FIR was registered by PW 14, Women Sub-Inspector. PW14, the Sub-Inspector, conducted the investigation to the crime and on completion of the same, submitted the chargesheet/ final report against the accused alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the above mentioned sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court, as per order dated 11.12.2015, framed a charge under Sections 363, 342, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW16 were examined and Exts. P1-P3, PW1/A-C, PW4/A-E, PW5/A-B, PW6/A, PW7/A-D, PW9/A-C, PW10/A, PW11/A, PW12/A, PW13/A, PW14/B-E and PW15/A were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. He denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. No hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial Court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto, vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

8. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the impugned judgment, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 506 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act. Hence, as per order dated 12.09.2024, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and to pay fine of ₹2,000/- and in default of payment of