* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.01.2026 + CRL.A. 328/2018 ALAUDDIN @ SHAKEEL .....Appellant Through: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate (DHCLSC).

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Urvashi, PS – Sonia Vihar.

Mr. Luv Manan, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

Counsel for DSLSA (appearance not given).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(the Cr.PC) has been filed by the first accused (A1) in S.C No. 09/2017 on the file of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,(the PoCSO Act) Karkardooma, North East District, Delhi, assailing the judgment dated 05.02.2018 as per which he has been convicted of the offences punishable under Section 10 of the PoCSO Act and Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). The second accused (A2) has been acquitted by the trial court.

2. The case of the prosecution is that two months before

17/10/2016, A1 and A2 wrongfully confined PW1 to 3 in a room in house No. C-1/133, Rahul Gujjar ka Makan, Gali No.9, Sonia Vihar, Delhi and subjected them to penetrative sexual assault and then threatened them with dire consequences in case they revealed the incident to others. As per the charge sheet/final report, the accused persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act.

3. Crime No. 354/2016, Khajuri Khas, Police Station, that is Ext PW4/2 FIR, was registered by PW4, ASI, Sonia Vihar, Police Station, based on Ext PW1/PA FIS dated 17.10.2016 of PW1, one of the victims. PW11 the Sub Inspector, conducted the investigation into the crime, and on completion of the same filed the charge sheet/final report alleging commission of the offences punishable under the above mentioned sections.

4. When the accused persons were produced before the trial Court, all the copies of prosecution records were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. After hearing both sides, the trial Court as per Order dated 06.02.2017 framed a Charge under Sections 376, Part II of Section 506 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act against A1 and a Charge under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act against A2, which was read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exts., PW1/A-C, PW 1/PA, PW 2/A-C, PW 3/A-C, PW4/1-4 , PW7/1-2, PW8/1-13, PW 12/1-3 , PW13/1, PW14/1-6, PW14/D1, PW15/1-5 and Mark P-1 were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. Both of them denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence.

7. After questioning the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC, compliance of Section 232 CrPC was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC 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). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.PC has caused any prejudice to them.

8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial Court vide the impugned Judgment dated 05.02.2018, acquitted A2 of all the offences charged against him under Section 235(1) Cr.PC. However, A1, the appellant herein, has been found guilty of the