[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Mukesh Singhal vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 20 February, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                             Judgment Reserved on: 16.02.2026
                                                        Judgment pronounced on: 20.02.2026
                          +      CRL.A. 192/2016
                                 MUKESH SINGHAL                                     .....Appellant
                                                   Through:   Ms. Sapna Chauhan and Mr. R.
                                                              Advocates.

                                                   Versus

                                 STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                              .....Respondent
                                               Through:       Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
                                                              SI Loveleen, P.S. Moti Nagar
                                                              Mr. Siddhant Nath, Advocate
                                                              (Amicus Curiae) for the victim.


                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                                   JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. 1973 (the Cr.P.C), the sole accused in SC No.

89/2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari

Court, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 28.01.2016 and order on

sentence dated 30.01.2016 as per which he has been convicted and

sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections363, 506 Part

II and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 04.08.2010 at about

4:15 PM outside Bharti College, Janakpuri, New Delhi the

appellant/accused forcibly pulled PW1, inside his car and

threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm. Thereafter, the accused

raped her inside the car.

3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/A FIS of PW1, given on

04.08.2010, crime no. 248/2010, Moti Nagar Police station, that is,

Ext. PW6/A was registered by PW6 Sub-Inspector. PW14, Sub-

Inspector conducted investigation into the crime and on

completion of the same filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging

commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 506

and 376 IPC.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court,

all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as

contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides,

the trial court as per order dated 14.12.2010 framed a Charge

under Sections 363, 506 Part II and 376 IPC, which was read over

and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 were

examined and Exts. PW1/A-E, PW1/DX, PW2/A-B, PW3/A,

PW4/A-B, PW5/A, PW6/A-B, PW8/A-B, PW9/A, PW11/A-F,

PW12/A, PW14/A-F, PW15/A-D, PW16/A, P-1, P-2, P3, Mark A

and Mark X were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused

was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and

maintained his innocence. He submitted that he had just given lift

to PW1. He never threatened or raped her.

7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313(1)(b)

Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the

case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC

is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the

said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless

omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in serious

and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State

of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89: 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888).

Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232

Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.

8. On behalf of the defence, DWs. 1 to 3 were examined

and Exts. DW1/A1-12, DW2/A and DW3/A were marked in

support of the case.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary

evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court,

vide the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2016 held the accused

guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 506 Part II

and 376 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 30.01.2016 the accused

has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period

of 03 years for the offence punishable under Sections 363 IPC and

to a fine of ₹2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for 15 days; to rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 03 years for the offence punishable under Section 506

Part II IPC and to a fine of ₹2,000/-, and in default of payment of

fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, and to rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 07 years for the offence punishable

under Section 376 IPC and to a fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of

payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 01 month.

The sentences had been directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved,

the accused has preferred the present appeal.

10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant/accused that in the light of the unsatisfactory evidence on

record, the trial court went wrong in convicting the accused under

the aforementioned Sections. According to her, there are several

contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of material

prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that as per the prosecution

case, the incident took place around 04:15 PM whereas as per

Ex.PW11/D arrest memo, the accused/appellant is shown to have

been arrested at 2:00 PM. This cannot be termed as a clerical

mistake. She further submitted that there are stark contradictions in

the statements made by PW1. It is evident from the 164 statement,

that PW1 was not alone on the street from where she was allegedly

pulled inside the car. As per the statement of PW1, she was pulled

inside the car by the accused which led to bruises on her wrist.

However, Ext. PW2/A MLC of PW1 says that there were no

bruises/injuries. It was further urged that the MLC, which notes

hymen tear and a small perineal tear on posterior fourchette

without any external injury, does not corroborate the allegation of

penetrative sexual assault. Further, referring to the testimony of

DW2, Territory Service Manager, Maruti Suzuki it was submitted

that it cannot be a case where PW1 was unable to escape as the car

of the accused had no central locking system installed. She further

submitted that the appellant/accused has already undergone

imprisonment for a period of about 06 years and hence the

sentence may be confined to the period already undergone by him.

11. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned Amicus

Curiaeon behalf of the victim that the testimony of PW1 is well

corroborated by Ex.PW2 /A MLC whereby it is mentioned that the

hymen was not intact and there was bleeding on the posterior

fourchette. He further submitted that the contradictions and

inconsistencies pointed out by the accused/appellant are quite

immaterial and irrelevant, which have not affected the core

prosecution case.The testimony of PW1 has not been discredited in

any way, and hence the trial court was right in finding the

accused/appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences. There is no

infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for an interference by

this Court, goes the argument.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted

that the medial evidence is well corroborated by the statements of

PW1 and so the trial court was right in convicting the

appellant/accused.

13. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied

on by the prosecution in support of the case. The incident in this

case is alleged to have taken place on 04.08.2010 at 04:15 p.m. at a

bus stand, near Bharti College while PW1 was on her way home

from college after attending classes. Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1

was recorded on the very same day of the incident. In the FIS, she

has stated thus:- "Today, at around 4:15 PM, I was walking

towards my college bus stand when a grey-coloured WagonR car

(Registration No. DL 2C AC 4901) stopped near me. A man was

sitting inside it. He began asking me for directions to DDU

Hospital. When I told him I didn't know, he started asking for

directions to Subhash Nagar. Upon my refusal, he grabbed me by

my hand, pulled me inside, and forced me onto the co-passenger

seat. He threatened me by saying, "I will kill you if you scream."

He kept driving the car around Hari Nagar. Eventually, he parked

the car on a street in Bali Nagar. I tried to open the car door and

run away. He threatened me and told me to take off my clothes.

When I didn't take them off, he forcibly removed all my clothes.

Then, he unzipped his pants and raped me. There was lot of blood

on my undergarments. He started driving the car again. I opened

the window of the moving car and jumped out. I screamed, and a

person from the public caught him and beat him up. Upon asking

his name, it was revealed to be Mukesh Singhal."

13.1. In Ext. PW1/B, the 164 statement of PW1, seen

recorded on 09.08.2010, she states thus:- On 04.08.2010 at about

4:15 PM, after leaving College while crossing the road, she noticed

a silver-grey Wagon-R car bearing number DL-2CAC-4901. The

man inside the car asked her for directions to DDU Hospital to

which she replied she does not know. Thereafter, the man asked

the way to another passerby, who also replied that he does not

know. The accused then again asked her for directions to Subhash

Nagar and when she asked him to ask somebody else, he grabbed

her, gagged her by covering her mouth with his hand and forcibly

pulled her inside the car. The accused drove the car to Clock-

Tower Road, Hari Nagar and then to Mahatma Gandhi Marg. She

tried to unlock the car and escape but was unable to do so. Further,

he stopped the car in a deserted lane near Bali Nagar Beat Box and

when she tried to escape again, he threatened to kill her. He

forcibly removed all her clothes and raped her which caused pain

and bleeding. He also told her that she would become pregnant.

The accused then reversed the car at which time two police

officials on patrol, arrived at the scene. Taking advantage of the

same, she jumped out and informed them of the incident. The

accused was apprehended.

13.2. PW1 when examined before the trial court stood by her

case in Ext. PW1/A FIS and Ext. PW1/B 164 statement. PW1 was

extensively cross examined and the last part of her testimony reads

thus:

"It is wrong to say that I myself took lift in the car of the accused and went with the accused with my own consent. It

is wrong to say that thereafter I started blackmailing the accused and demanding money. It is wrong to say that the accused did not accede my demand and was falsely implicated in the case. It is wrong to say that the accused had not extended threat to me at any point of time. It is wrong to say that the accused had not committed any rape on me and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is wrong to say that since I myself gone with the accused that is why I did not raise any alarm from my college to the alleged place of incident which took around 45 minutes to reach. It is wrong to say that I have deposed falsely".

(Emphasis supplied)

14. As noted earlier, the accused has been charged with the

offences punishable under Sections 363, 506 Part II and 376 IPC.

Section 363 IPC deals with punishment for kidnapping. Section

361 IPC, which defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship, says

that whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age,

if a male, or under eighteen years of age, if a female, or any person

of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such

minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such

guardian, commits the offence of kidnapping from lawful

guardianship.

15. From the materials on record, it is doubtful whether any

kidnapping had taken place. If PW1 is to be believed, the accused

while sitting in the driver seat of his car kept the left front door of

the car open and then pulled her inside the car after gagging her by

covering her mouth with his hand and then drove off with her. This

incident is alleged to have taken place at about 04:15 p.m. near the

college of PW1. The testimony of PW1 itself shows that there

were other persons around because even according to PW1, when

the accused first asked her for directions, she told him to ask

somebody else. The accused then asked another person on the

street behind her. But the said person was also unable to help the

accused. Therefore, the accused again asked her and then she

replied that the accused need to seek directions from somebody

else at which point the accused pulled her inside the car. From the

testimony of PW1, it appears that there were other persons also

around at the time.

16. Further, PW1 deposed that after she was pulled inside

the car by the accused, the latter drove the car around a few places.

She tried to escape by opening the car door but she was unable to

do so as the door of the car was locked by the accused. PW1

admits that while driving the car, accused had made calls on his

mobile phone. PW1 deposed that she was unable to take her

mobile phone from her jeans pocket, while the accused was

driving her around as it was quite a tight and fitting jeans. Despite

that the accused is alleged to have removed all her clothes while

sitting in the front seat of the car and then raped her. This appears

quite difficult and improbable and difficult to believe. It is here the

suggestions that were made to PW1 in the cross examination to

which I have already referred to assumes significance. Probably,

PW1 might have taken a lift in the car of the accused as suggested

to her during her cross examination. Therefore, the evidence on

record is unsatisfactory to find the offence of kidnapping against

the accused. Hence, the trial court went wrong in convicting the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.

17. Now coming to the medical evidence adduced by the

prosecution. Ext. PW2/A is the MLC of PW1. No fresh external

injuries were seen at the time of her examination. On examination,

there were no signs of external fresh injuries on the whole body. A

small perineal tear was found on the posterior fourchette and

bleeding. The hymen was also found torn. PW2, Sr. Resident

Doctor, Department of Casualty, DDU Hospital deposed that Dr.

Awdesh, who had prepared the MLC of PW1 had left the services

of the hospital and that his present whereabouts were not known.

PW2 deposed that he can identify the signature and handwriting of

Dr. Awdesh who had examined PW1. The MLC was marked as

Exhibit PW2/A. PW2 deposed that as per the MLC her vitals were

found normal.

18. PW 9, Sr. Gynaec, DDU Hospital deposed that on

04.08.2010, he had examined PW1, who was brought to the

hospital with alleged history of abduction and sexual assault. The

patient was found frightened. On examination, her vitals were

found normal and no abnormality was detected. On local

examination we did not find any signs of external flesh injury on

the body. However, a small perineal tear was present on the

posterior fourchette and she was bleeding. Her hymen was found

torn. PW9 deposed that Ext. P9/A is the detailed report prepared

by him. In the cross examination PW9 deposed that he did not find

any external injuries on PW1 except the perineal and hymen. The

MLC coupled with the testimony of the doctors which has not

been discredited in any way shows that physical relation did take

place.

19. PW1 at the time of the incident on 04.08.2010 was 17

years of age and therefore apparently a minor. The age of PW1 has

not been disputed. Therefore, even assuming that the physical

relation was consensual that would not help the accused because

consent of a minor is immaterial. That being the position the

offence of rape as contemplated under Section 375 IPC is certainly

made out.

20. As noticed earlier the incident took place on

04.08.2010. Section 376 (1) IPC as it then stood reads thus:-

"376. Punishment for rape.--(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:

Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years."

(Emphasis supplied)

21. The trial court has sentenced the accused to a period of

07 years imprisonment for the offence punishable under section

375 IPC. The nominal roll dated 19.12.2025 says that as on

07.05.2016, the accused had served a period of 05 years, 08

months and 06 days imprisonment and that the unexpired portion

of the sentence is 01 year, 03 months and 18 days.

22. In the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the

sentence of imprisonment can be confined to the period already

undergone by the accused.

23. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The

conviction and sentence of the accused for the offences punishable