* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 15.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on:17.04.2026 + CRL.A. 48/2017 AJAY KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ravi Tikania, Advocate.

Versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Monika, PS Alipur.

Mr. B. Badrinath, Advocate for DSLSA.

Ms. Devika Mohan, Mr. Karan and Mr. Dhruv Negi, Advocates.

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.PC), the sole accused in SC No. 57840/2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 19.12.2016 and the order on sentence dated 22.12.2016 by which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 23.02.2014 at 10:15 AM, on the main road, near BDO Office, Alipur, the accused assaulted PW1, a minor girl, aged about 13 years, by showing his private part to her with an intention to outrage her modesty. Accordingly, as per the charge-sheet/final report dated 18.03.2014, the accused was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354AIPC and Section12 of the PoCSO Act.

3. On the basis of Exhibit PW1/A FIS/FIR dated

23.02.2014 of PW1, crime no. 164/2014, Alipur Police Station, i.e., Exhibit PW6/A FIR was registered by PW6, Assistant Sub Inspector. PW14, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. PW14 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report dated 18.03.2014 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.PC. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 28.07.2014, framed a Charge under Sections 354 IPC and Section 12 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 14 were examined and Exhibits PW1/A-B, PW6/A-B, PW7/A-B, PW8/A-

B, PW8/D1, P1, PW10/A, PW11/A-B, PW12/A-D, PW13/A 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.PC 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 PW2, father of PW1, was engaged as a van driver for school children and that he had borrowed ₹5,000/- from the former. He further stated that he had repaid the loan after some delay, at which time, he had a quarrel with PW2, who managed to get his services terminated from the school, and later on falsely implicated him in the present case.

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.PC 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 19.12.2016 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable un