[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court

Rajesh vs State on 23 February, 2026

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                               Judgment Reserved on: 18.02.2026
                                                          Judgment pronounced on: 23.02.2026

                          +      CRL.A. 1168/2019 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1501/2025
                                 RAJESH                                              .....Appellant
                                                 Through:      Ms. Aishwarya Rao and Ms. Mansi
                                                               Rao, Advocates

                                                 versus

                                 STATE                                             .....Respondent
                                                 Through:      Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
                                                               SI Sangeeta Malik.
                                                               Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta,
                                                               Advocate for DSLSA with Ms. Mansi
                                                               Yadav, Mr. Sidharth Barua, Mr.
                                                               Shekhar Anand Gupta, Mr. M. Desai,
                                                               Ms. Navneet Kaur and Ms. Shivani
                                                               Rampal, Advocates
                                                               Ms. Gayatri Nandwani, Ms. Mudita
                                                               Sharda and Mr. Adrian Abbi,
                                                               Advocates.

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
                                                 JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) read with Section

383 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the sole

accused in Sessions Case No.787/2017 on the file of the

Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi,

assails the judgement dated 20.07.2019 and order on sentence

dated 23.07.2019, as per which he has been convicted and

sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 6 read with 5

(l) & (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012, (the PoCSO Act).

2. The prosecution case is that during the period from April

2016 till the intervening night of 25.06.2017-26.06.2017 at D-32,

Sewak Park, Dwarka Mor, Delhi, the accused repeatedly

committed penetrative sexual assault on PW1, his daughter.

3. Based on Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, dated 26.06.2017,

Crime No.423/2017, Bindapur Police Station, that is Ext. PW11/A,

FIR was registered by PW11, Head Constable (HC). PW18, Sub-

Inspector conducted investigation into the crime and on

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

commission of offences punishable under 376 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1806 (the IPC) and under Section 6 of the

PoCSO Act.

4. When the appellant/accused was produced before the trial

court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to

him as contemplated under 207 Cr.PC. After hearing both sides,

the trial court as per order dated 02.02.2018, framed a charge

under Section6 read with Section 5 (l) & (n) PoCSO Act and, in

the alternative, under Section 376 (2) (f) & (n) IPC, which was

read over and explained to the appellant/accused to which he

pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 18 were examined

and Exts. PW1/A-C, PW2/A-D, PW4/A, PW5/A, PW8/A, PW9/A-

F, PW11/A-B, PW12/A, PW13/A, PW15/A, PW16/A, PW17/A-D,

PW18/A-E 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

led by the prosecution. He denied all those circumstances and

maintained his innocence. He submitted that he had been falsely

implicated because he objected to the frequent visits abroad, of his

wife and also the love affair of PW1 with one Vijay.

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

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

8. On behalf of the defence, DW1 was examined.

9. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

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

impugned judgment dated 20.07.2019 held the appellant/accused

guilty of the offence punishable under Section6 read with 5 (l) &

(n) of the PoCSO.Consequently, the trial court vide order on

sentence dated 23.07.2019 sentenced the appellant/accused to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years for the

offence punishable under Section 6 read with 5 (l) & (n) of the

PoCSO and to fine of ₹ 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months. Aggrieved, the

appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that

the conduct of PW8 was unnatural and out of line as she being the

mother of PW1 when informed of the alleged assault in October,

2016, never took any action. PW1 and her siblings claimed to have

been aware that a complaint could have been made by contacting

the police on number 100, but they did not do so. It was also

submitted that though the fact has not been brought on record

during the cross-examination, truth is that the present matter is

borne out of a property dispute between PW8 and the

accused/appellant.

10.1. It was further submitted that the first sample collected

for FSL examination, was ridden with fungus and therefore, a

second sample was collected, however, the necessary procedural

links have not been duly followed or established for the second

sample. She further submitted that the FSL report is based on

certain findings mentioned in tabular columns but in the instant

case, the tabular columns are not mentioned in the FSL report. The

similarity of DNA found between the accused/appellant and PW1

is bound to happen as it is of a father and his daughter. There was

no examination of the expert. Therefore the said report is not

backed by cogent reasoning which renders the FSL report

inadmissible. Reference was made to the dictum in Rahul v. State

(NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 SCC 83 in support of the argument.

10.2. Lastly, she submitted that at the relevant point in time,

the offence was punishable with minimum 10 years which may

extend to life. However, the trial court has grossly erred in

sentencing the appellant/accused to rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 15 years. It was submitted that if the court is not inclined

in allowing the appeal, leniency may be shown in the quantum of

sentence.

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

Public Prosecutor that the testimony of PW1 is consistent,

throughout the course of trial. He submitted that during the cross-

examination of PW1 there was no suggestion or even a whisper by

the defence, about the alleged love-affair with one Vijay. It was

only during the cross-examination of PW3, sister of PW1, that

Vijay was introduced for the first time. The FSL report admissible

under Section 293 Cr.P.C. was never challenged when it was

marked and admitted in evidence. Therefore, the same cannot be

challenged in appeal. There is no infirmity in the impugned

judgment, calling for an interference.

12. Heard both sides and perused the records.

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 between April 2016 and

26.06.2017 at D-32, Sewak Park, Dwarka Mor, Delhi,the residence

of the accused, the father of PW1. Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, the

victim, was recorded on 26.06.2017. In the FIS, PW1 has stated

thus:-My father's name is Rajesh, son of Gurucharan Das, he does

not work and stays at home all day. My mother, Rita, works as a

cook in Dubai and has been living there for about a year. She came

to visit us in October 2016 and went back to Dubai in April 2017.

During that time, my father, me and my siblings lived in the house.

From April 2016, when my brother and sister used to go to sleep at

night, my father would wake me up, take me to the adjacent room,

and establish physical relations with me against my will. He used

to threaten me by saying that if I told anyone about it, he would

kill me. My father used to forcibly establish physical relations with

me every seven to ten days. Out of fear, I did not tell anyone.

When my mother came home in October 2016, I told her about the

actions of my father. My father then apologized to my mother, and

we did not file any complaint. My mother told me that if he

repeated the abuse in future, I should file a complaint with the

police. As soon as my mother went back to Dubai on 16.04.2017,

my father started threatening me again and forcibly establishing

physical relations. He would frequently rape me. On the night of

25.06.2017, at about 1:00 AM, when I and my siblings were

sleeping, my father came and woke me up, took me to the room

next door, and forcibly raped me. In the morning at about 9:00 I

told my sister and brother. My brother then informed Reshu Didi

(PW7) about the incident over the phone. She called us to Rajouri

Garden, and the three of us siblings went to Reshu Didi at Rajouri

Garden. There, Reshu Didi called on 100 number and helped us

lodge the complaint.

14. In Exhibit PW1/C, the 164 statement, recorded on

27.06.2017, PW1 reiterates her case in the FIS. The 164 statement

of PW1 reads thus:-My father does wrong/inappropriate things

with me. My mother works in Dubai. She went to Dubai on

29.04.2016. Just 2-3 days after that, my father took me to another

room while my brother and sister were sleeping. My father lay on

top of me. He showed me dirty pictures on the phone. He asked me

not to tell anyone. My father took off my salwar and touched me

on my chest and my private parts. He put his private part into my

private part. Then he sent me to the other room. After a few days,

he kept calling me like that and continued doing such things.

Mummy came home in October 2016. Then I told Mummy

everything. While mummy was there, my father didn't do

anything. Mummy said, "Forgive him this time; if he does it next

time, then file a police complaint." Out of fear, I kept obeying my

father. My mummy went to Dubai in April 2017. Until then,

nothing happened, but as soon as mummy left, my father started all

this again. The last time this happened was on 25.06.17. My

younger sister had also seen this once, so my father used to

threaten her, saying, "Don't speak too much," and he used to scold

and beat her too. On the afternoon of 25.06.2017, my brother was

not at home and my sister was sleeping. My father called me and

closed the door and repeated the same wrong thing. He called me

again that night and did the same wrong thing. At that time, my

brother and sister were sleeping. Something "white" came out of

his private part. My father told me to wash the same and go to

sleep. He said not to tell this to anyone. On 26.06.2017, I told my

brother and sister and then spoke to Reshu Didi on the phone. The

police number was blocked on our phone. Then I called the police

from my father's number. We couldn't get through to the police

from there either. My father saw that a call had been made to

number 100. He asked who made the call, and we said we didn't

know. Then my father began to make us pray over the phone. We

locked father inside and went to Reshu Didi. He used to ask to me

to swear by god that I won't tell anyone. Whenever I would start to

tell someone, he would hover around me and stare at me.

15. PW1, when examined before the trial court, stood by her

case in the FIS and in her 164 statement. She deposed that her

mother worked in Dubai from April 2016. During this time, the

accused would wait until her siblings were asleep to take her to an

adjoining room, undress her, and commit rape. When her mother

returned in October 2016, she disclosed the abuse. The accused

apologized after being confronted and was warned that any

recurrence would be reported to the police. However, after her

mother returned to Dubai in April 2017, the accused resumed the

sexual assault. On 25.06.2017, she was raped again at night and on

the next morning she told her brother and sister about the same.

Thereafter, the went to Reshu Didi at Rajouri who helped in

lodging the complaint.

16. PW3, sister of PW1, when examined before the trial court

deposed that in the year 2016, her mother had gone to Dubai for

work. She along with her father, sister and brother used to reside at

their home. In absence of her mother, her father used to establish

physical relations with her sister. On one occasion, she had

objected to her father's act but he had threatened her and told her

not to disclose about his acts to anyone. In October 2016, her

mother came back to Delhi. Her sister had revealed the abuse to

their mother. Her mother had confronted her father about his

wrong acts. Her father had shown remorse and sought apology

from her mother. In April 2017, her mother again went to Dubai.

After her departure, her father again started doing the above act

with her sister. One day, when she objected to the acts of her

father, he beat her. On the intervening night of 25.06.2017-

26.06.2017, her father again established physical relations with her

sister. On 26.06.2017, her sister told about the said act to her in the

morning. Thereafter, she discussed the above facts with her

brother. Later on, she along with her siblings met didi. (PW7).

Didi used to meet them in the Church. Thereafter they went to the

police station Bindapur and gave the complaint.

17. PW6, brother of PW1deposed that latter had told him and

PW2 that their father had forcibly established physical relations

with her. He stated that they used to meet one didi 'R'(PW7) at

Church. The incident was informed to Didi 'R' (PW7) on phone.

Thereafter, they had met her at Rajouri Garden and thereafter, they

went to the police and gave the complaint.

18. PW7, when examined deposed that she knew the victim

and her siblings through prayer meetings at Jesus Calls, Dwarka

Mor, New Delhi. On 26.06.2017, the victim's brother called her in

a nervous state, disclosing that their father had established sexual

relations with the victim and used to beat their youngest sister. At

her instruction, the siblings came to Rajouri Garden Metro Station,

where the victim revealed the full details of the abuse. She

contacted the police and reported the matter to the police.

19. PW8, mother of PW1 and wife of the accused, when

examined before the trial court deposed that with the help of her

friend 'O', she travelled to Singapore for work in April 2016. On

her return in October 2016, her daughter (PW1) revealed that the

accused had forcibly established physical relations with the

former. She confronted the accused, who denied the allegations but

offered to apologize if any wrong had been perceived. Driven by

continued financial distress, she again moved to Dubai for work,

where she later received calls from her children informing that the

accused had again raped PW1. She advised them to report the

matter, and with the help of 'R', a police complaint was filed.

20. Ext.PW4/A MLC of PW1 reveals that there were no

external injuries, but the hymen is stated to be-"old torn". No

suggestion was ever put to PW1 during her cross-examination that

any alternate reasoning could be found for the hymen being torn.

21. The relevant portion of Ext. PW18/E FSL report reads

thus;-

Conclusion :- DNA profiling ( STR analysis ) performed on

the source of exhibits'ldl', ' ld2', ' lel ' & ' le2' ( Microslides I

Swabs of victim), ' lfl ', ' lf2', ' lgl ' &' lg2' ( Microslides I

Swabs of victim ) and ' lhl ' & 'lh4' ( Paijami and Underwear

of victim) vide FSL NO 20 l 7 /B-5840 and '1' ( Blood sample

of accused ) vide FSL NO2018/B-1021 is sufficient to

conclude that DNA Profile generated from the source of

exhibit,\.'l' ( Blood sample of accused ) vide FSL NO 2018/B-

1021 is similar with DNA profile generated fromsource of

exhibits 'ldl', ' ld2', 'lel' & 'le2' (Microslides I Swabs of

victim),' lfl ', ' lf2', 'lgl' & 'lg2'(Microslides / Swabs of victim)

and ' lhl ' & ' lh4'( Paijami and Underwear of victim).

22. Ext. PW18/E FSL report was marked through

PW18, the Investigating Officer (IO). When the report was

marked and admitted in evidence, the same is not seen

objected. There was no request from the accused to examine

the expert who prepared Ext. PW18/E. PW18 is also not

seem cross-examined on this aspect. Now even assuming for

argument sake that the FSL report cannot be accepted, there

is still the testimony of PW1, the victim.

23. The testimony of PW1, PW3, PW6, PW7 and PW8

has not been discredited in any way and, therefore, I find no

reason(s) to disbelieve their version. The accused is

admittedly the father of PW1. A father, by every social,

moral, and legal expectation, is meant to be the protector,

safe harbour, and guardian of his daughter, someone in whom

she places her most unconditional and innocent trust. But the

accused exploited precisely that sacred trust. Even by

ordinary standards of criminal law, rape is widely regarded as

a crime of greater moral gravity than murder, for while

murder extinguishes a person's life, rape destroys something

equally irreplaceable; the dignity, autonomy, and inner sense

of self of a woman who has done nothing to deserve such

violation. This truth becomes all the more profound and

disturbing when the person committing this grave offence is

the victim's own father. (See State of H.P. vs. Asha

Ram,(2005) 13 SCC 766).

24. PW1 in her FIS, 164 statement as well as in her

testimony has clearly deposed about the sexual abuse by the

accused. Merely because PW8, her mother did not file a

complaint at the first instance does not mean that the sexual

assault did not take place, especially when the specific

testimony of PW1 regarding rape by the accused has not been

discredited in any manner. PW1 stood with the cross

examination. Her case is substantiated by the testimony of

PW3, and PW6, whose testimony has also not been

discredited in any way. It needs to be borne in mind that the

accused is none other than the father of PW1. There is no

reason(s) as to why PW1 should falsely implicate her own

father in a case of this nature. I find no infirmity in the

impugned judgment regarding the guilt of the accused.

25. The only question that remains for consideration of

this court is on the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial

court. The trial court has awarded a sentence of 15 years for

the offence punishable under Section 6 read with 5 (l) & (n)

of the PoCSO. The sexual abuse in this case took place

during the period from April 2016 till 25.06.2017. Section 6

of the PoCSO Act as it then stood reads thus:-

"6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten year but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine"

26. In the light of the dictum in Ravinder Singh v. The State

Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2024) 2 SCC 323 the trial court could not

have imposed a sentence of 15 years, though the High Court and

the Apex Court are empowered to do so. Hence the sentence

imposed by the trial court is modified thus: as the

appellant/accused is the father of the PW1, the minimum sentence

of 10 years would not suffice for the crime committed against his

own young daughter. Hence the sentence is modified to a period of

14 years rigorous imprisonment.

27. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction

of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the

PoCSO Act is confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of