$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 174/2020 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP.

versus RAHUL @ DEEPU .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 02.12.2025

1. The State seeks leave under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “Cr.P.C.” to assail judgment of acquittal dated 16^th December, 2019 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-07 (POCSO), West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in SC No. 29/2014, titled “State v. Rahul @ Deepu” These proceedings emanate from FIR No. 456/2013, registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar for the offences under Sections 354-A(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “IPC” and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 1860.3 Factual Background

2.1. The case of the prosecution originates from a complaint lodged by the victim’s mother, alleging that on 21^st December, 2013, when she returned home from work, her daughter informed her that while she was watching

television at the jhuggi of one Aarti, the Respondent arrived and held the victim’s hand. Her friend ‘A’, who was also present, intervened and helped remove the Respondent’s hand. It is further alleged that the Respondent then made the victim sit on the bed and touched her chest, upon which she managed to free herself and ran away. On the basis of this complaint, the subject FIR was registered.

2.2. During investigation, the victim’s statements were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and she was medically examined. Upon conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for offences under Section 354A(1) IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. By order dated 28^th April, 2014, the Trial Court framed charges against the Respondent under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. 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 Victim ‘K’ Alleged sexual assault; statement under Section 164 CrPC.

PW-2 ‘P’, mother of the Complainant; called the Police on 100 number;

victim corroborated the victim’s disclosure.

PW-3 ‘A’, friend of Present with the victim at the time of the incident;

victim did not support the victim’s account.

PW-4 Shri Manoj Kumar, Lab Assistant in Produced the victim’s school record to prove that her Physics Lab, Govt. date of birth was 3^rd August, 2003.

Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, PW-5 W/Ct. Laxmi. Went with victim to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and got her medically examined.

PW-6 Ct. Sunil Kumar. Got the FIR registered; got the victim’s MLC conducted.

PW-7 Retd. SI Rajender Recorded the statement of the victim’s mother;

Singh prepared rukka.

3 “POCSO Act”

2.4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the Respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein all incriminating material was put to him. He denied the allegations in toto and claimed false implication. In his defence, he examined Mrs. Aarti as DW-1, at whose jhuggi the incident was alleged to have occurred. DW-1 deposed that she was at home with her children throughout the relevant period and that the victim had not visited her house on the date of the alleged incident. She further stated that she witnessed a quarrel between the victim’s father and the Respondent over money on the evening of the same day.

2.5. Upon consideration of the victim’s age, witness depositions, and the evidence on record, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 16^th December, 2019, 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 on the following grounds:

3.1. The impugned judgment rests on presumptions, conjectures and surmises rather than a sound and correct appreciation of the evidence on record and is, therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

3.2. The victim has remained consistent in her version in her statements under Sections 161 a