* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 19.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 21.01.2026 + CRL.A. 669/2018 SHRAWAN .....Appellant Through: Ms. Sagarika Kaul Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.PC.) the appellant, the sole accused, in S.C. No. 249/2017 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, challenges the judgment dated 09.05.2018 and the order on sentence dated 16.05.2018 as per which, he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 27.01.2017 at about 5.00 PM the appellant/accused, on the pretext of delivering food, entered the house ofPW1, i.e., House No. D-105, Bindapur Gaon, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, committed penetrative sexual assault on her and threatened her with the dire consequences in case she revealed the incident to others.

3. On the basis of Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, given on

27.01.2017, crime No. 64/2017, Police Station Bindapur, i.e., Ex. PW8/B FIR was registered by PW8, ASI Ramesh Chand, on 27.01.2017 at around 9:38 P.M. PW11, Woman Sub- Inspector, conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, submitted charge-sheet dated 11.04.2017 alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 506 IPC.

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 trialcourt as per order dated 09.05.2017, framed a charge under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A-F, PW3/A, PW6/A, PW8/A-D, PW9/A, PW10/A, and PW11/A-H were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. According to the accused, he has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of PW1’s husband’s brother (PW2) and his wife (Jethani) as PW2 lost his job on the complaint made by the father of theaccused. He alsosubmitted that the relationship was consensual.

7. After questioning the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC., compliance of Section 232 Cr.PC. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.PC. 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. versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). In the case on hand, the accused has no case that noncompliance of Section

232 Cr.PC. has caused any prejudice to him.

8. In defence, the accused examined DW1, a factory worker, who deposed that he knew the appellant/accused through his father, with whom he had earlier worked, and was also acquainted with PW2 and his wife. DW1 testified that on two to three occasions he had seen PW1 and the accused together when PW1 used to take PW2’s children from school, and that he had even seen them holding hands.

9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trialcourt, vide the impugned judgment and order on sentencefound the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years under Section 376 IPC and to fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine,