* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of reserving Judgment: 9^th March, 2026 Date of decision: 7^th April, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ CRL.A. 1469/2010 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 2542/2025 SUBHASH @ BABLOO .....Appellant Through: Mr. Chetan Bhardwaj & Mr. Priyal Bhardwaj, Advs.

versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the State with SI Priyanta, PS Lodhi Colony.

Mr. Sanjay Gupta (DHCLSC) for prosecutrix.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

JUDGMENT

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. Appellant Subhash @ Babloo was held guilty under Section 363/366/376 Indian Penal Code („IPC‟) vide the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2010 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) through the order on sentence dated 11.08.2010, whereby RI for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- was awarded under Section 363 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for one month. Whereas, Appellant was awarded RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 366 IPC, with rider that in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of 2 months and finally, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

2. Assailing the aforesaid judgment of conviction and the sentence awarded, the Appellant preferred the instant appeal, which is hereby disposed of.

3. The indispensable facts are required to be looked into before adverting into the details and intricacies of the contentions raised by the rival parties. The Appellant and the prosecutrix were known to each other. The conduct of the prosecutrix reflect that she had reposed a lot of faith in the Appellant, inasmuch as when she was scolded by her mother on being late from the tuition on 06.03.2008 and apprehending that her brother would also scold her, she straight away went to the Appellant and insisted that he should marry her and that she would not go back to her place as stated in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, there is a different version too, according to which it was the Appellant, who kidnapped her and took the victim to his native place in Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, where he married her in a temple and also had sexual intercourse.

4. The matter was reported to the police by the brother of the prosecutrix when she did not return home on 06.03.2008. The complaint lodged by the brother of the prosecutrix, namely, Rafiq Ahmed, resulted in the registration of FIR No. 56/2008, under Section 363 IPC. One phone call from the victim, seemingly gave a breakthrough in the instant case and the police team, along with the brother of the prosecutrix reached Himachal Pradesh, at the native place of the Appellant, from where the Appellant was arrested and the prosecutrix was recovered on 12.03.2008 and both were brought to Delhi.

5. Investigation was carried out including medical examination of the victim and the Appellant and other incidentals, that is, preparation of various documents, seizure of photos, recording of statements etc. and finally chargesheet was filed under Section 363/366/376 IPC.

6. To the charges framed under Section 363/366/376 IPC, the Appellant pleaded not guilty. Prosecution came up with examination of 14 witnesses, thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded in which he not only clarified, but gave his version also. According to him, the prosecutrix and the Appellant were in love with each other and on the insistence of the prosecutrix, the Appellant took her to his native place and married her. Whatever happened had happened with the consent and insistence of prosecutrix. He opted to bring evidence in his defence and apart from his father, examined himself, as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively.

7. As aforesaid, the trial resulted in conviction of the Appellant followed by the sentence a