* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 07.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 16.04.2026 + CRL.A. 1036/2016 ROHIT .....Appellant Through: None.

Versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Akash Deep, PS Gulabi Bagh.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.), the sole accused in SC No. 22/2014 (New Case No. 27704/2016) on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 30.07.2016 and the order on sentence dated 16.08.2016 by which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 06.02.2014 at about

8:45 PM, near House No. 48, Pratap Nagar, Delhi, the accused sexually assaulted PW5, a minor aged about 14 years, by catching hold of her, gagging her mouth and pulling her. It was further alleged that by using criminal force against PW5, the accused outraged her modesty. Accordingly, as per the charge-sheet/final report dated 25.02.2014, the accused was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354A, 323 IPC and Section 8 of the PoCSO Act.

3. On the basis of Exhibit PW5/A FIS/FIR dated

06.02.2014 of PW5, given on 06.02.2014, crime no. 20/2014, Gulabi Bagh Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW6/C FIR was registered by PW6, Head Constable. PW11, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. PW11 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 25.02.2014 alleging commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 19.03.2014, framed a Charge under Sections 354 IPC and Section 8 of the PoCSO Act, which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits PW1/D1, PW2/A, PW3/A-D, PW4/A-B, PW5/A-B, PW6/A-E, PW11/A-B were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He stated that he had been falsely implicated as he had a quarrel with PW10, who had caused injuries to him, and in order to save PW10 from prosecution, PW5 lodged a false complaint against him.

7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313(1)(b)

Cr.PC, compliance of Section 232 Cr.PC was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.PC is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply with the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.

8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned judgement dated 30.07.2016 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354A IPC and Section 8 PoCSO Act. Vide order on sentence dated 16.08.2016, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period o