DEEPAK vs STATE

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 16.12.2025 Pronounced on : 14.01.2026 Uploaded on : 15.01.2026 + CRL.A.700/2018 DEEPAK .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj and Ms. Nandini Singhal, Advocates versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State. Mr. Kanahiya Singhal, Mr. Pulkit Jolly, Ms. Avantika Shakar, and Ms. Shatakshi Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking setting aside of the judgment of conviction dated 09.03.2018, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC; and the order on sentence dated 15.03.2018 vide which he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 ½ years along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for 6 months. The benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant. 2. The facts of the prosecution case, as noted by the Trial Court, are reproduced hereunder: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIJAMUDDEEN ANSARI CRL.A. 700/2018 Page 1 of 13 Signing Date:15.01.2026 18:54:30 “2. The criminal law set into motion on the written complaint of the prosecutrix, Ex.PW1/A wherein she has stated that her parents had died during her childhood and she had been residing with her Tauji namely XXXX (elder brother of her father) and she hails from Assam. She further stated in her statement that two years prior to registration of present case, she came to Delhi along with her Mausi, XXXX in search of work and that her Mausi had got her employed as a maid at the house of one Ms. XXXX in the area of Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and she is still working there. 3. It is further stated in the statement that this Sunda