STATE vs DEEPAK KUMAR PASWAN

Judgment text excerpt

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: April 09, 2025 + CRL.L.P. 341/2017 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Mahesh Kumar P.S. Kalkaji Versus DEEPAK KUMAR PASWAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Srivastav, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) CRL.L.P. 341/2017 : 1. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) has been filed on behalf of the State against the Judgment dated 30.08.2016 whereby Respondent has been acquitted of the offences by learned Additional Session Judge in case FIR No.638/2014, under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi. 2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that there is cogent evidence of the Prosecutrix which is corroborated by her mother, to prove that sexual relationship was established by the Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANIL Page 1 of 10 KUMAR BHATT Signing Date:05.05.2025 17:58:41 Respondent/accused under the false promise of marriage, which has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. 3. For the reasons stated, the Petition is allowed. Appeal be registered. 4. The Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of. CRL.APPL.No.________/2025 (To be numbered by the Registry) 5. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C has been preferred against the Judgment dated 30.08.2016 vide which the Respondent has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 376/506 IPC in FIR No. 638/2014, registered at Police Station Kalkajee, New Delhi. 6. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is that the Prosecutrix gave