STATE (NCT OF DELHI) vs USMAN & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: November 20, 2025 + CRL.REV.P. 509/2023 & CRL.M.A. 11966/2023 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State. versus USMAN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ahmad Parvez, Adv. for R-1 through V.C. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) against the order dated 04.01.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), North West District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 404/2019 whereby Respondent No.1 was discharged of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were discharged of the offences under Sections 323/34 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated, FIR in the present case was registered pursuant to a complaint given by the prosecutrix. It is alleged that Respondent No.1, who was the tenant of the prosecutrix, took the prosecutrix and her children to Ajmer Dargah. It is alleged that Signature Not Verifiedafter visiting Ajmer Dargah, Respondent No.1 took the prosecutrix Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.REV.P. 509/2023 Page 1 of 10 KAUR Signing Date:28.11.2025 13:08:16 and her children to a hotel room and gave them food. After eating the said food, the prosecutrix and her children allegedly started feeling drowsy. It is alleged that when the prosecutrix woke up the next morning she found that Respondent No.1 had committed sexual assault upon her in her unconscious condition. 3. Thereafter, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the CRPC was recorded wherein she stated that Respondent No.1 did not commit any wrong act with her and