BADAL @PRINCE MALHOTRA vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Judgment text excerpt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :10.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 09.01.2026 + CRL.A. 240/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 375/2023 BADAL @ PRINCE MALHOTRA ..... Appellant versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Mr. Aakash Yadav, Mr. Salil Dixit and Mr. Amit Upadhyay, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State with SI Asha, PS Sarita Vihar. Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Adarsh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Vishal Gupta and Ms. Neha Yadav, Advocates. CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and order on sentence dated 29.11.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned order on Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY KUMAR Signing Date:10.01.2026 CRL.A. 240/2023 Page 1 of 23 18:53:23 sentence’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 9503/2016 arising out of FIR No. 322/2016 (‘FIR’), registered at Police Station Sagarpur. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was held convicted for the offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). 3. By the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of ₹20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1. On 01.07.2016, a complaint was made by the brother of the victim, who was fourteen years of age at that time, in regard t