RASUL AZAM vs THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 04.08.2025 % Pronounced on: 03.11.2025 + CRL.A.537/2023 RASUL AZAM .....Appellant Through: Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate (DHCLSC) versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Paramjit PS Ranhola, Delhi. Ms. Ishita Misra, Advocate for prosecutrix. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT 1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2023 and order on sentence dated 15.04.2023 passed SC No.: 49/2019 arising out of FIR No.708/2017, registered at P.S. Ranhola under Section 363/376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [in short, ‘IPC’] and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [in short, ‘POCSO Act]. 2. The facts in nutshell as noted by the learned trial court are as follows: “2. As per the version of the prosecution, on 17.10.2017, the complainant, the father of the victim had stated that her daughter 'S' (name withheld to protect the identity of the victim) who was studying in class 9th had not gone to the school on 16.10.2017 due to ill health. He also stated that his daughter who was 4 feet 9 inches tall wearing blue Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A.537/2023 Page 1 of 13 By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY coloured jeans, a blue shirt and blue coloured sandals had left home on 16.10.2017 without informing anybody at home. He searched for her but could not find her and he had a doubt that some unknown person may have kidnapped her. On receipt of the complaint, FIR was registered under section 363 IPC and SI Sandeep Rathi conducted an enquiry and completed the procedure regarding the search of the missing girl but nothing could be found about the missing girl. 3. It is furt