* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 03^rd February, 2026 Pronounced on: 25th March, 2026 + CRL.A. 264/2021 STATE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Adv.

Insp. Sandeep Kumar, SI Dinesh Kumar, PS Nand Nagri.

versus KULDEEP .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Ms.

Pallavi Sharma Kansal, Mr. Pratham Malik, Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Advs. along with accused in person.

CORAM:

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

J U D G M E N T

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. State takes exception to the judgment dated 20^th July, 2019, whereby, respondent Kuldeep has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per charge sheet, are that on 23^rd January, 2013, father of the prosecutrix ‘P’ (name withheld), came at Police Station Nand Nagri and lodged a complaint that his daughter has been lured away by some unknown person. He stated in such complaint that he is a driver and had gone to Gauhati with his truck and upon coming back, he was informed by his wife that on 10^th January, 2013, she left for work at 11.00 am, and in the evening when she returned back, she found the prosecutrix missing from the house. His wife made efforts to search her at her relatives places but could not find any clue. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR was registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”]. 3. During investigation, the photograph of the prosecutrix was uploaded on Zip-net, wireless message was flashed and ‘Hue & Cry’ notice was published. In order to trace the prosecutrix, the mobile number, from which the prosecutrix had made call at her home, was kept on surveillance. It was found that the location of the aforesaid number was at Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar and the same was in the name of Ram Kumar, son of Hari Ram.

4. On 26^th January, 2013, SI Rajeev (PW-11) along with the parents of the victim and Constable Ram Kishan (PW-3) went to Amritsar. On enquiry, Ram Kumar informed that the phone was being used by Rani, wife of Jairaj, resident of Rajeev Nagar, Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar.

5. On 27^th January, 2013, prosecutrix ‘P’ was recovered from Rajeev Nagar, Lohgarh Gate, Amritsar on the pointing out of her father. Respondent Kuldeep was apprehended on the pointing out of prosecutrix ‘P’ from Railway Station, Amritsar. On 28^th January, 2013, prosecutrix and respondent Kuldeep were brought at PS Nand Nagri. They were got medically examined. The exhibits were seized. Statements of prosecutrix were recorded under Section 161 & 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [“Cr.P.C.”]. Respondent was subsequently arrested. On 29^th January, 2013, prosecutrix was produced before Child Welfare Committee [“CWC”], Dilshad Garden and by the orders of CWC, she was handed over to her parents. Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory [“FSL”], Rohini. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The date of birth proof of the prosecutrix was collected. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against respondent Kuldeep under Sections 363/366/342/376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“POCSO”].

6. Charges under Section 363/366/342/506 and under Section 376 IPC read with Section 4 of POCSO Act were framed against the respondent, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. In order to bring home guilt of the respondent, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence appearing on record against him. He claimed that he was innocent and was falsely implicated. He stated that he had never gone to Amritsar nor had taken or called the victim to Amritsar. He further stated that the mother of the victim had demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him and on his refusal, the victim and her family falsely implicated him in this case. According to him, he was arrested by the police in Delhi. He refused to lead an