$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 596/2022 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Advocate with SI Dharmendra Pratap Singh, PS-Alipur, Delhi.

versus KISHORE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bharat Gupta, Mr. Tushar Rohmetra, Mr. Ankit Rana, Ms. Shipra Bali and Mr. Bharat Khurana, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Ujjwal Puri, Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Krishna Arora and Ms. Sonam Dixit, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R

% 16.01.2026

1. The present leave petition has been filed to seek leave to appeal against the impugned judgement dated 11^th February, 2022, whereby the respondents were acquitted for offences punishable under Sections

363/302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”].

2. Learned APP for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse and suffers from grave misappreciation of evidence, inasmuch as the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the complete chain of circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution. It is submitted that the testimony of PW-2 clearly proves the “last seen” circumstance, which stands corroborated by subsequent recoveries effected pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused/respondents, including recovery of the skeletal remains, school uniform, bag and music player of the deceased, duly identified by the father of the deceased (PW-7), and further corroborated by the FSL reports. On these grounds, it was urged that the acquittal under Sections 363/302/201/34 IPC has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice and warrants interference by this Court.

3. Mr. Sunil Dalal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Puri for the respondent no.2, on the other hand, submitted that the testimony of PW-2 is wholly unreliable and clearly planted, as he was a neighbour and well acquainted with the family of the deceased, was aware of the missing child for nearly two years, yet never disclosed the alleged “last seen” fact until his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was recorded. It is submitted that PW-2 implicated only accused Pankaj and not the other co-accused, and significantly, the acquittal of the juvenile co- accused has not been challenged by the prosecution, thereby weakening the prosecution’s theory of common involvement. It is further argued that despite allegedly enquiring from the father about the whereabouts of the missing boy and progress of the case, PW-2 never revealed this crucial fact earlier, rendering his belated statement untrustworthy. On these grounds, it was submitted that a conviction cannot rest on conjectures or doubtful testimony and must be founded on cogent, credible and unimpeachable evidence, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.

4. Having considered the rival submissions and upon a prima facie consideration of the impugned judgment, the Court finds that the matter requires consideration and appeal needs to be heard on merits.

Leave to Appeal is accordingly granted. CRL.A. /2026 (to be numbered)

5. Issue notice.

6. Notice accepted by the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

7. List the appeal in the category of “Regular Matters” in the week commencing from 06^th July, 2026.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JANUARY 16, 2026/na/Yg