RAJU vs STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 22.09.2025 Pronounced on: 08.10.2025 + CRL.A. 102/2021 RAJU .....Appellant versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Memo of Appearance For the Appellant: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, DHCLSC with Mr. Ishat Singh Bhati, Ms. Prachi Nirwan and Mr. Gaurav Chahal, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP and Mr. Vinesh Kumar, Advocates. Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, DHCLSC with Mr. Lalit Chaudhary, Mr. A Atri, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN JUDGMENT 1. Appellant challenges his conviction under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 363, 366, 376 IPC and consequent order on sentence. 2. Since matter pertains to a sexual assault committed, allegedly, upon a minor girl, such victim would be referred to as ‘Miss A’ in the present judgment. 3. Let us take note of the relevant facts. 4. On 21.06.2014, father of ‘Miss A’ reported to the police that his daughter, aged 14 years, was missing. He also suspected that she (Miss A) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A. 102/2021 Page 1 of 16 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:29:02 had been enticed away by accused Raju (appellant herein). 5. FIR for commission of offence under Section 363 IPC was registered and investigation was initiated. 6. Initially, there was no clue about either of them. 7. Eventually, on 06.07.2014, PW11 Kamal Singh (father of accused Raju) produced his son Raju as well as ‘Miss A’ before the police. 8. Statement of ‘Miss A’ was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she was got medically examined. She was also produced before Child Welfare Committee (CWC) which directed her custody to be handed over to her parents. Sinc