SULEMAN @ MONU vs STATE

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 11.08.2025 Pronounced on : 09.09.2025 + CRL.A. 1192/2019 SULEMAN @ MONU .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sumer Kumar Sethi, Advocate (DHCLSC) with appellant in person. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Akash Sachan, Ms. Anuka Bachawat and Ms. Charu Sinha, Advocates for victim. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 04.08.2017 and the order on sentence dated 08.08.2017 passed by the ASJ, Special Court (POCSO Act), North, Rohini, New Delhi in S.C. No 58344/16, arising out of FIR No. 1056/2014 registered at P.S. Narela, Delhi under Sections 376 IPC & 10 POCSO Act. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 9 (m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. By the order of sentence, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A. 1192/2019 Page 1 of 8 By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:09.09.2025 19:11:04 Imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith payment of fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default in payment whereof, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 60 days. The Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. This Court, while admitting the present appeal vide order dated 17.10.2019, had suspended the sentence of the appellant. 2. The facts as noted by the Trial Court in the impugned judgmentare extracted herewith: “2. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are that complainant Mrs. 'S' is living at Punjabi Colony, Narela alongwith her husband and her two da