Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandrasekharan Sudha, J
State – Appellant
Versus
Nitu Singh – Respondent
CRL.A. 265/2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Utkarsh
For the Respondents: Ravinder Mehandra

An appellate court cannot convict an accused for an uncharged offence by invoking the doctrine of minor offences unless the offence is cognate and shares identical core ingredients, and the acquittal is not disturbed unless the lower court's reasoning is deemed perverse or patently unreasonable.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 386 - Appeal against acquittal - The appellate court possesses power to review and reappreciate evidence, yet it must respect the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and refrain from interfering unless the trial court's decision is perverse, illegal, or demonstrably unreasonable. (Para 17)

(B) Penal Code - Section 354 - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty - Section 222 - Conviction for minor offence - The court cannot convict an accused for a major offence like assault on a woman not charged, under the guise of it being a minor offence, where said offence entails a greater or distinct sentence, necessitating that offences be cognate in nature. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of the accused for offences related to sexual harassment and stalking of an adolescent. The trial court had acquitted the accused of all charges. The prosecution contended that despite minor discrepancies, the core of the evidence regarding the physical conduct of the accused toward the victim had been established, thereby warranting a reversal of the acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that while the conduct of the accused in grabbing the victim's hand in a secluded area constituted criminal force and an attempt to outrage modesty, no charge for such specific offence had been framed. The trial court had limited the charges to sexual harassment and stalking, neither of which were sustainable on the presented facts. Furthermore, given the distinct nature of the offences, the appellate court could not exercise the power to substitute the charge for a more serious one not originally framed at trial.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellate court could convict the accused for an offence not charged in the trial court by invoking the provision for minor offences, and whether sufficient grounds existed to overturn the initial acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions enabling a conviction for a minor offence cannot be invoked when the offence sought to be proven is not a minor, cognate offence of the one originally charged, particularly where the elements and sentencing profiles differ significantly. In the absence of a properly framed charge and given the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the order of acquittal was maintained.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of prosecution facts and trial court acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. appellate court power to review acquittals and double presumption. (Para 7 , 17 , 18)
3. summary of rival arguments regarding judgment validity. (Para 10 , 11)
4. analysis of offenses and evidentiary applicability of ipc/pocso. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. limitations on convicting for non-charged minor offenses via section 222 cr.p.c. (Para 23 , 24)
6. formal dismissal of the appeal due to lack of merit. (Para 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.), the State in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge- 01, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, assails the judgment dated 29.01.2015 as per which the sole accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 354A,

354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case is that on 20.03.2013, at about 10:00 PM at 572D, Naraina Village, New Delhi, the accused used criminal force upon PW2, aged about 17 years, with the intention to outrage her modesty and followed her with sexual intention to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite clear indication of disinterest by PW2. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(i), (v), 354D, 509 IPC and Section 12 of the PoCSO Act.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW2/A FIS of PW2, given on 20.03.2013, crime no. 71/2013, Naraina Police Station, i.e., Ext. PW1/B FIR was registered by PW1, Sub-Inspector. PW3, Sub Inspector (SI), was entrusted with the investigation of the case.

PW3 conducted investigation into the crime and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report 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 11.09.2013, framed a charge under Sections 354A, 354D 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 3 were examined and Exts. PW1/A-C, PW2/A-F, PW3/A-D, and PX1 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 claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case.

7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. 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 29.01.2015, acquitted the accused under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354D IPC and Section 12 of the PoCSO Act. Aggrieved, the respondent/State has come up in appeal.

10. It was submit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIChandrasekharan Sudha, JState – AppellantVersusNitu Singh – RespondentCRL.A. 265/2018

An appellate court cannot convict an accused for an uncharged offence by invoking the doctrine of minor offences unless the offence is cognate and shares identical core ingredients, and the acquittal is not disturbed unless the lower court's reasoning is deemed perverse or patently unreasonable.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandrasekharan Sudha, J
State – Appellant
Versus
Nitu Singh – Respondent
CRL.A. 265/2018