$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 9^th April, 2026 Uploaded on: 13^th April, 2026 + CRL.A. 10/2019 MOHD. ZAMIL .....Appellant Through: Mr. S.S Ahluwalia, with Ms. Saniya Zehra, and Mr. Prince Balyan, Advs.

along with Appellant in person versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. ThepresentappealhasbeenfiledbytheAppellant-Mohd.Zamil under Section374(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973(hereinafter,‘CrPC’) challenging the judgment dated 7^th August, 2018 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) and order on sentence dated 10^th August, 2018 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge (North West)-01, Special Court, POCSO, Rohini District Court in Sessions Case No. 123/2014 arising out of FIR No.

139/2014 registered at P.S. Kanjhawala.

3. Vide the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 6 read with Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the ProtectionofChildren fromSexual Offences Act,2012 (hereinafter, ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’). The Appellant has been sentenced vide order on sentence dated 10^th August, 2018 in the following terms:

“(i) For the offence u/s 506 (i) IPC, the convict Mohd. ZamilissentencedtoRigorousImprisonmentforaperiod of two years along with a fine of Rs. l,000/-(Rs. One thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I for one month.

(ii) For offence u/s 6 of POCSO Act, the convict Mohd. Zamil is sentenced to life imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.”

4. The allegation against the Appellant was that he had repeatedly indulged in sexual assault of his own daughter (hereinafter, ‘Prosecutrix’), who was a minor. On 22^nd February, 2014, the prosecutrix was taken by her mother to the hospital wherein, she was found to be pregnant. Initially, the prosecutrix had falsely implicated a friend, however, thereafter she had made a statement that she was repeatedly subjected to sexual assault by her own father.

5. Upon the incident being reported, the exhibits were seized from the victim i.e., the prosecutrix and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter, ‘FSL’) on 25^th February, 2014. The FSL Reports which were prepared, revealed that the DNA of the foetus matched with the DNA of the father of the prosecutrix. Thus, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act were made out.

6. Insofar as the date of birth of the prosecutrix was concerned, in her school records, the date of birth was recorded as 15^th October, 1999 whereas in her Aadhar Card which was prepared during the course of the trial of the case, the date of birth was recorded as 15^th October, 1996. The Trial Court went by the school records and observed that the Aadhar Card was made at the instance of the mother who was also making an attempt to not completely disclose the true facts.

7. Further, the prosecutrix had not reported the incident contemporaneously in October-November of 2013 as per her testimony. The prosecutrix in her statements stated that she was repeatedly threatened by her father that he would stop taking care of them and also would not give the monthly expenses. The Trial Court has extracted the testimony of the prosecutrix in the impugned judgment. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as under:

“PW-8 is the victim herself who stated that she was working in an NGO where she came in touch with Honey Singh and became friendly with him. Neither Honey Singh nor her father had committed anything wrong with her and she does not want to tell the name of person who raped her. She stated that her mother took her to the hospital and her statement was recorded twice in the courtbyonej