[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Bittu @ Rajesh vs State on 17 January, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 13.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 17.01.2026
+ CRL.A. 211/2017
BITTU @ RAJESH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Advocate.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the
State.
Ms. Sonakshi Singh, Amicus Curiae
for the victim.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the appellant, the sole
accused, in S.C. No. 43/15 on the file of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-01, Rohini Courts, New Delhi, challenges the
judgement dated 04.01.2017 and the order on sentence dated
09.01.2017 as per which, he has been convicted and sentenced for
the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the PoCSO Act) and
Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that the appellant/accused
intimidated PW2 and committed repeated acts of penetrative
sexual assault on her inside their house at Village Ladhpur, Delhi,
about 7-8 months prior to 03.02.2015. Due to the assault, PW2
conceived.
3. On the basis of Exhibit PW2/AFIS of PW2, given on
03.02.2015, Crime No. 97/2015, Kanjhawala Police Station, i.e.,
Ex. PW1/A, FIR was registered by PW1, SHO. PW7 conducted
investigation into the crime and on the completion of the same,
filed the charge-sheet/final report alleging commission of the
offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 377, 506 IPC and
Section 4 of the PoCSO Act.
4. When the accused was produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to him as
contemplated under 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial
court as per order dated 18.03.2015, framed a charge under
Section 506 IPC and under Section 5(j)(ii), (n) and (p) of the
PoCSO Act and alternatively under Sections 376(2)(h)(n) and 377
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 15 were
examined and Exhibits PW1/A-D, PW2/A-C, PW3/A-F, PW4/A,
PW5/A-B, PW6/A, PW6/X, PW7/A-M, PW8/A, PW9/A-G,
PW12/A and PW15/A were marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all
the circumstances and maintained his innocence. According to
him, he has been falsely implicated in the case by PW2 at the
instance of PW6, her mother.
7. After questioning the accused under Section 313
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.
versus State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89; 2009 SCC OnLine
Ker 2888. In the case on hand, the accused has no case that non-
compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. has caused any prejudice to
him.
8. The accused offered himself as a witness and hence, he
was examined as DW1. According to DW1, PW6, his wife, was
initially married to his elder brother who passed away. PW6,
wanted to grab his share as well as his brother's share in the
property. PW2 was having affairs with several boys in the locality.
On 02.02.2015, he came to know that PW2 was pregnant. He
scolded and beat her. This was objected to by PW6 and hence, she
tutored PW2 who gave a false case against him. On 03.02.2015, he
came to know that an allegation of rape has been leveled against
him. On 04.02.2015, he was arrested, at which time, his blood had
been taken in three vials, though he opposed the same. On
29.04.2014, he came to know that the vials of his blood had been
planted as the blood vials of the deceased child by the
Investigating Officer (I.O.).
9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the impugned
judgment and order on sentence, found the accused guilty of the
offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and Section 6 of the
PoCSO Act and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years under Section 6 of the
PoCSO Act and to fine of ₹5,000/-, and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months as well as
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the
offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and to fine of
₹1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to simple
imprisonment for one month. The sentences have been directed to
run concurrently. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C has also been
granted. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.
10. The only point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed
against the appellant/accused by the trial court are sustainable or
not.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant/ accused fairly
conceded that the materials on record does establish the
prosecution case. However, on the said ground alone, this Court
cannot dispose of the appeal because once an appeal is admitted,
the Court is duty bound to dispose of the same on merits and
hence, I proceed to do so.
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 about 7-8 months prior to
03.02.2015 at House No. 928, Village Ladhpur, Delhi. In Ex.
PW2/A FIS, PW2 has stated that after the death of her father, her
mother (PW6) married the accused, her paternal uncle after which
they all started living together. Her mother and brothers used to
leave for work in the morning and she was often alone at home.
About 7-8 months back in the afternoon at around 1 PM when she
was alone at home, the accused came home and after having his
food, called her into his room to take the utensils. He then closed
the door. With the heater wire, he gave electric shock to her. He
threw her on the bed, after which he forcibly had physical relations
with her. The accused threatened her that if she revealed the
incident to anybody, he would kill her. Thereafter, whenever she
was alone at home, the accused used to threaten her and forcibly
have physical relations with her. She did not tell anyone out of
fear. Her mother had suspicions and when her mother asked her,
she told her everything. Her mother conducted a test at home and
then it was found that she was pregnant. Hence, her mother
informed the police.
13.1 In Ex. PW2/B, the Section 164 statement of PW2
recorded on 04.02.2015, she reiterates her case in the FIS. PW2,
when examined before the trial court stood by her case in the FIS
and her 164 statement.
13.2 PW6, the mother of PW2, deposed that after the death
of her husband, she married the accused, her younger brother-in-
law (dewar) after which he started residing with her. She used to
leave for work early in the morning and return in the evening. Her
sons also used to leave home for work for their respective work at
which time PW2 would remain in the house. About a few months
back, her daughter informed her that the accused had been doing
wrong things to her daughter in her absence. When PW6 was
asked to specify what she meant by "galat kaam", she replied that
the accused had forcibly established physical relations with her
daughter. When she came to know of the same, she conducted a
pregnancy test on her daughter. The test was positive and showed
that her daughter was pregnant, pursuant to which she informed
the police. PW6 also deposed that her daughter was taken to the
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial (SGM) Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi,
where the doctor informed her that her daughter was seven and a
half months pregnant. Her daughter was admitted in the hospital
and she delivered a baby boy. The boy died the next date.
13.3 PW4, Senior Gynae, SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi,
who examined PW2 and issued Ex. PW4/A MLC, deposed that
PW2 was found 28-30 weeks pregnant and that PW6 had refused
consent for PW2's internal gynecological examination.
13.4 PW11, Senior Pediatric, SGM Hospital, Delhi deposed
that on 29.04.2015, he had taken the blood sample of the boy child,
prepared Ex. PW7/H MLC and had handed it over to PW7, the I.O.
13.5 PW12, Senior Gynae, SGM Hospital, Delhi deposed
that on 29.04.2015, PW2 was found to be seven months pregnant.
PW2 delivered a baby. She prepared a detailed report which is Ex.
PW12/A.
13.6 PW13, Senior Pediatric, SGM Hospital, Delhi deposed
that he had prepared Ex. PW7/K death summary report of the baby
child.
13.7 PW15, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini
deposed that he had prepared a detailed biological and DNA
examination, i.e. Ex. PW7/M. He also prepared Ex. PW15/A data
allelic chart. He opined that the DNA profiling was sufficient to
conclude that the source of Ex. '1' (blood sample of the accused)
was the biological father of the source of Ex. '3' (blood sample of
the child). In the cross-examination, he deposed that DNA match
profile is not 100 % accurate, but it is 99.99999% correct.
14. The testimony of PW1 and PW6 coupled with the
medical evidence establishes the prosecution case. The testimony
of PW1 and PW6 has not been disconnected in any way and,
therefore, I find no reason(s) to disbelieve their version. The
accused is admittedly the step father of PW2. Despite the same,
the trial court has awarded only the mandatory minimum sentence
of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the
PoCSO Act. The testimony of PW1 also establishes the offence
under part I of Section 506 IPC and hence, no interference into the
impugned judgment is called for.
15. The trial court has directed that compensation of
₹1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees) be granted to PW2. The Secretary,
D.L.S.A, North West District, is directed to ensure that in case
compensation has not been disbursed, the same shall be disbursed
at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
16. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
Application(s), if any pending shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 17, 2026
