STATE vs MANISH YADAV

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 08.04.2025 + CRL.REV.P. 184/2017 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State along with SI Aarti Yadav, PS kapashera. versus MANISH YADAV .....Respondent Through: Respondent with his counsel Mr. H.S Yadav and Pradeep Yadav, Advs. + CRL.REV.P. 836/2017 SMT KIRAN MISHRA .....Petitioner Through: Counsel (appearance not given). versus STATE & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State along with SI Aarti Yadav, PS kapashera. Respondent No. 2 with his counsel Mr. H.S Yadav and Pradeep Yadav, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT CRL.REV.P. 184/2017 & connected matter Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:09.04.2025 14:39:24 DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J 1. By way of the present petitions, the State as well as the prosecutrix, seeks setting aside of the order dated 02.12.2016 [hereafter „impugned order‟] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-SFTC, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, [hereafter „learned ASJ’], whereby the accused Manish Yadav had been discharged of the offences punishable under Section 376/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC’]. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the prosecutrix, who is marriage and is aged about 30 years, mother of two minor children, was residing with her husband, Sheel Kumar Mishra, in a rented accommodation at Kapashera, Delhi. The accused, four years younger to her, had been visiting the coaching institute where the prosecutrix was working and was responsible for administrative work as well as for imparting basic computer classes. Thereafter, the prosecutrix had left her job due to her pregnancy and had