STATE vs SONU @ PARMINDER

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 8th January, 2026 Uploaded on: 15th January, 2026 + CRL.A. 1327/2015 STATE .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv. versus SONU @ PARMINDER .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh J., 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’) challenging the acquittal of the Respondent- Sonu @ Parminder i.e., the Accused vide order and judgment dated 9th January, 2013 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 3. This appeal arises out of FIR No.255/2010 dated 9th December, 2010 registered at Police Station-Nihal Vihar under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’), which was registered and dealt with as Sessions Case No.1/2013. The Respondent- Mr. Sonu @ Parminder i.e., the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR CRL.A. 1327/2015 Page 1 of 40 Signing Date:15.01.2026 17:54:51 Accused, was charge-sheeted by Police Station- Nihal Vihar under Sections 363/376 of the IPC. 4. The allegation in the present case was that around 05:00 A.M. on 5 th December, 2010, near RZF-80, Nihal Vihar, Delhi, the Accused had kidnapped the Prosecutrix from the guardianship of her parents and had committed rape upon her. The incidents are stated to have occurred at two places i.e., Jammu and Amritsar between January to March, 2011. The charge against the Accused was in respect of offences under Sections 363/376 of the IPC. 5. The statement of the Prosecutrix