State vs Rahul Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2027 Del

                          $~S-3

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                                   Judgment Delivered On: 02.08.2021
                          CRL.L.P. 173/2020

                          STATE                                                            ..... Petitioner

                                                      versus

                          RAHUL KUMAR                                                      ..... Respondent


                          Advocates who appeared in this case:


                          For the Petitioner          : Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State along with S.I.
                                                        Kuldeep Singh, P.S.: Khyala, Delhi along with victim.
                          For the Respondent          : Mr. Rahul Kumar, respondent in person along with
                                                        two kids.


                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

                                                      JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (OPEN COURT - BY VIDEO CONFERENCING)

1. The present leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of the

Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been instituted on behalf of the State

assailing judgment and order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned

Trial Court acquitting the accused, namely Mr. Rahul Kumar of charges Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN

21:28:06 under sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under

Section 6 POCSO Act, arising from FIR No. 426/2013 registered at P.S.:

Khyala, Delhi.

2. It is the admitted position that, in terms of the ossification report

exhibited before the learned Trial Court, the alleged victim was an adult

on the date of commission of the offence; and was in fact already married

to the accused.

3. We are informed at the Bar today that the alleged victim and Mr.

Rahul Kumar, the accused before the learned Trial Court, are since living

together as husband and wife; and in fact they have two sons, aged about

07 years and 04 years.

4. The above circumstance is clearly indicative of the fact that the

alleged victim and the accused, who were both adults at the time of the

alleged commission of offence, are married to each other of their own

free will and volition; and have in fact started a family.

5. Even otherwise, a perusal of impugned judgment and order dated

09.12.2019 leaves no manner of doubt that there is no ground made-out

to grant leave to appeal therefrom to the State, in the present

proceedings.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN

21:28:06

6. Impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2019 is accordingly

upheld; and the petition seeking leave to appeal filed on behalf of the

State is hereby dismissed, as being devoid of merit.

7. The criminal leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI (JUDGE) AUGUST 02, 2021/rs

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by:DURGESH NANDAN

21:28:06