$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 713/2015, CRL.M.A. 16191/2015 & CRL.M.A.

16192/2015 THE STATE ( GNCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State with SI Neeraj, PS Kotwali.

versus GULSHAN @ DHEELA @ VIJAY .....Respondent Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. The State seeks leave under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “Cr.P.C.” to assail judgment of acquittal dated 13^th April, 2025 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 16/14, titled “State v. Gulshan @ Dheela @ Vijay” whereby the Respondent has been acquitted of the offences alleged in FIR No. 38/2014, registered at P.S. Kotwali for the offences under Sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” and Sections 5, 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.3 Factual Background

2.1. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: the victim’s mother

3 “POCSO Act”

lodged a complaint, alleging that on 15^th January, 2016, the Respondent molested the victim in a park. She alleged that the Respondent took the victim under a quilt, compelled her to lie down, removed her pyjami and touched her private parts. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR came to be registered.

2.2. During investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and she was medically examined. On conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for offences under Sections 354/376 IPC and Sections 5/9/10 of the POCSO Act. By order dated 7^th March, 2014, the Trial Court framed charges against the Respondent under Section 6 of POCSO Act read with Section 376(2) IPC. The Respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

2.3. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses, details whereof are as follows:

PW No. Name/Description Role/ Deposition PW-1 Ali Ansari @ Public Witness Afsan PW-2 Mother of the Complainant; corroborated the victim’s disclosure.

victim PW-3 Father of the Purported eyewitness victim PW-4 HC Sudhir, Duty Recorded the DD, registered FIR, made endorsement Officer on rukka PW-5 Victim Alleged digital penetration by the Respondent PW-6 SI Sheela Investigating Officer, recorded the Complainant’s statement, prepared chargesheet PW-7 Dr. Sonu Medically examined the victim, prepared MLC.

2.4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the Respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations in entirety, asserted false implication, and did not lead defence evidence.

2.5. Upon consideration of the victim’s age, witness depositions, and the evidence on record, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 13^th April, 2015, acquitted the Respondent of all charges.

State’s Contentions

3. Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP for the State, seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment, urging that the acquittal rests on an unduly sceptical approach and an erroneous appreciation of the record. He submits that the Trial Court has treated peripheral discrepancies as fatal and, in doing so, has lost sight of the substance of the accusation and the consistent core of the victim’s account. He contends that the victim’s version has remained materially consistent, both in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her deposition before the Trial Court. The variations referred to in the impugned judgment are minor in nature, and are attributable to the age of the witness and the passage of time. It is further argued that in prosecutions of this genre, a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, and that the Trial Court has applied an unduly exacting standard, contrary to settled principles. The State contends that the testimony of the victim, read with the surrounding circumstances and the investigation record, is sufficient to call for a full appellate reappraisal, and therefore leave ought to be granted.

A