X vs STATE & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 04.03.2025 + CRL.A. 192/2020 X .....Appellant Through: Pankaj Gupta, Adv. versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP SI Neelam, PS Swaroop Nagar Mr. M.K. Srivastava, Adv. for R2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal filed against impugned judgment dated 26.11.2019 passed in SC No. 57577/2016by the learned ASJ(North)-06: Special Court: POCSO, Rohini Courts, Delhi, wherein the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent No. 2 for the offences under section 354 of IPC and 8 POCSO Act. 2. Since the appellant was a minor at the time of the incident, it is directed that the name of the appellant appearing in the paper book be redacted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 is the biological father of the appellant. It is alleged that her father used to do obsceneacts with her daughter/victim that had not been reported by her to anyone. Digitally Signed CRL.A. 192/2020 Page 1 of 10 By:DEEPANSHU MALASI Signing Date:12.03.2025 21:10:45 Due to the said acts, she had shifted with her mother to her maternal grandparents house. In the morning of 19.10.2013, she along with her mother and her mama (maternal uncle) came to the house of her father and on that day also, respondent No. 2 touched her breast. Hence, the present FIR. 4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and charges were framed against the respondent No. 2 under section 8 of POCSO and section 354 of IPC. 5. The prosecution examined total 9 witnesses to prove their case and 1 witness by the respondent No. 2. 6. Learned Trial Court, after recording the evidence, vide impugned judgment dated 26.11.2019 acquittedthe respondent No. 2 for the offe