UDAI PAL vs STAT

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 27.10.2025 + CRL.A. 155/2007 UDAI PAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Passey, Advocate versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Puja Mann, Mr. Vipin Kumar Yadav, Advocates and SI Vishvendra Singh CORAM: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, Udaipal, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’], seeking setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 22.05.2006 [hereafter ‘impugned judgment’] and the order on sentence dated 27.05.2006 [hereafter ‘impugned order on sentence’] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter ‘Trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 40/2006, arising out of FIR No. 426/2005, registered at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 155/2007 Page 1 of 14 Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:27.10.2025 18:12:38 Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter ‘IPC’]. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that on 11.11.2005, the prosecutrix, a minor girl, went missing from her house. A missing report was lodged on 14.11.2005, but when she could not be traced, the present FIR came to be registered on 29.11.2005. During investigation, the police apprehended the appellant Udaipal and recovered the prosecutrix from his house (jhuggi) located near the Delhi–Faridabad border, in Faridabad, Haryana. The prosecutrix, upon recovery, made a statement before the Investigating