X vs STATE & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20th May, 2026. Uploaded on: 23rd May, 2026 + CRL.A. 356/2019 X .....Appellant Through: Ms. Supriya Juneja and Ms. Shreya Lamba, Advs. (M: 9711347312) versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Mr. Lalit Luthra and Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv. for State with SI Pragati Soni PS Paharganj. Mr Akash Gupta; Mr Atul Kumar Gupta; Mr Rajat Sharma, Advs. for R- 2. (M: 9868043624) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present appeal challenges the impugned judgment dated 13 th August, 2018 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Spl. FTC-2), (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No. 16/2017 arising out of FIR No. 261/2016 registered at P.S. Pahar Ganj, by which the Respondent No.2 has been acquitted from the charges under Section 328/376(2)(n)/506 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. The operative portion of the impugned judgment reads as under: “74. In the instant case, the facts and circumstances are CRL.A. 356/2019 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:23.05.2026 13:06:05 beating the drum that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 75. Since there is no evidence regarding stupefying substance served upon the prosecutrix, hence, prosecution has been failed to prove its case against accused u/s 328 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 76. From the close scrutiny of testimony of the prosecutrix, it is proved that prosecutrix was consenting with the accused. Accordingly, from the close scrutiny of evidence available on record, it is established that prosecution has been failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Suresh Sha