[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mannu vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi on 22 January, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 19.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 22.01.2026
+ CRL.A. 583/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1129/2024
MANNU .....Appellant
Through: Md. Aslam, Mr. Saroj K. and
Mr.Chirayu Sharma, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State
with SI Shubhanshu, P.S. Kalyanpuri.
Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta
(DSLSA), Ms. Mansi Yadav,
Mr.Sidharth Barua, Ms. Navneet
Kaur, Mr. Shekhar Anand Gupta and
Ms. Shivani Rampal, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C.), the
appellant, the sole accused, in SC No. 499 of 2017 on the file of
the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012, (the PoCSO Act) East district, Delhi, assails
the judgment dated 08.02.2023 and order on sentence dated
27.03.2023 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for
the offences punishable under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act and
Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).
2. The prosecution case is that about 8 months prior to the
registration of the crime, the accused committed penetrative sexual
assault on PW1, a minor girl aged about 14 years multiple times at
Jhuggi No.1070, 18 Block, Kalyan Puri, Delhi, thereby
impregnating her. He also threatened her with dire consequences in
case she did not accede to his demands. Hence, as per the final
report/ chargesheet, the accused is alleged to have committed the
offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 506 IPC and Section
6 of the PoCSO Act.
3. On the basis of Ext. PW1/A, FIS of PW1 given on
30.06.2017, crime no. 219/2017, Kalyanpuri Police station, that is,
Ext. PW11/B was registered by PW11 Head Constable (HC).
PW12 Sub Inspector, conducted the investigation into the crime
and on completion of the same, filed the charge-sheet/final report
alleging commission of offences punishable under the
aforementioned sections.
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.PC. After hearing both sides, the trial
court as per order dated 23.10.2017,framed a charge under Section
376(2), 506 of IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act, 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 Exts. PW1/A-B, PW2/X, PW3/A-B, PW5/A, PW6/A, PW7/A-
B, PW9A-B, PW10/A-E, PW11/A-E, PW12/A-F, A/1-2, PW13/A-
B, PW14/A were marked in support of the case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused
was questioned under Section 313 CrPC 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 been falsely
implicated since he scolded PW1 as she was maintaining
friendship with a boy who used to visit her in his absence.
7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313 CrPC,
compliance of Section 232 CrPC 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. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced by the accused.
8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 08.02.2023 held the accused guilty of
the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6
of the PoCSO Act and hence sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable
under Section 6 of the PoCSO Act and to a fine of ₹ 20,000/-, and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months. Aggrieved, the accused has preferred this present
appeal.
9. It was submitted by learned counsel for the
appellant/accused that there exists a grave infirmity in the
prosecution case inasmuch as, as per the testimony of PW13, on
02.08.2017 three sealed parcels bearing the seal of "LBS HOSP
KP" were received at the office of FSL Rohini vide FSL No.
2017/13 5754, whereas on 23.02.2018 two sealed parcels bearing
the seals of "LBS HOSP KR" and "CMO DHAS DELHI" were
received at the office of FSL Rohini under the same FSL number. It
was contended that this discrepancy clearly indicates planting or
tampering of samples and, consequently, PW13/A FSL report
cannot be entirely relied upon to come to a conclusion.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that though PW1, the victim, had turned hostile, it was
categorically admitted by her that her blood samples were taken,
which fact stood duly corroborated by the testimony of PW15, the
medical officer who had drawn the blood sample. It was further
submitted that PW13/A FSL report, was duly proved by PW13.
Reliance was placed on the dictum in Mahipal v. State (NCT of
Delhi),2020 SCC OnLine Del 2721, to canvass the point that
conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of the DNA report
even if witnesses turn hostile. It was thus contended that there is no
infirmity in the decision of the trial court warranting interference by
this Court.
11. Heard both sides.
12. I shall first briefly refer to the evidence on record relied on
by the prosecution in support of the case. The incident is alleged to
have taken place about 8 months before 30.06.2017, when the crime
was registered. Exhibit PW1/A FIS of PW1, the victim was recorded
on 30.06.2017. In the FIS, PW1 has stated thus:- "... A man named
Mannu (the accused) has been living in a live-in relationship with
my mother for the last 6 years. Mannu and my mother also have a
daughter, Mahi, aged 2 years. About 8 months ago, at around 10:00
PM, Mannu forcibly did 'wrong things' (galat kaam) with me
against my will. At that time, my mother was not at home. When I
told him I would complain to my mother, Mannu threatened to kill
me, saying I must do as he says. He held a knife to my neck, and so I
was scared/frightened. Mannu forcibly did 'wrong acts' (galat kaam)
with me several times in my mother's absence, due to which I
became pregnant. When I told Mannu about this, he forcibly took
me away from home and started living in Jai Bharti Camp, East
Vinod Nagar. There, too, Mannu did 'wrong acts' (galat kaam) on
me. Today, Mannu left me at my mother's hut and fled. My mother
then informed the police.....".
13. PW1/B, the statement given by PW1 under Section 164
CrPC, is seen recorded on 01.07.2017. In the said statement PW1
has stated thus:- "While my mother was at my grandfather's house
for 10-15 days, Mannu assaulted me daily. Whenever I tried to tell
my mother, he would terrify me by showing a knife or a blade. He
threatened to kill my brother and said he would strangle my mother
while she slept. Once, I had fever and Mannu gave me medicine that
caused my whole body to swell. My mother found out and fought
with him. On 06.05.2017, while my mother was out for getting
medicine for the children, he kidnapped me and took me to a room
in Vinod Nagar. We stayed there for about 2 months. Later, my
mother found us. When I said I wanted to go with her, Mannu
threatened to disfigure my face with a blade. He even repeated this
threat inside the police station, saying he would disfigure both mine
and my mother's face. He then took me to his brother's house in
Block 21 and later to Trilokpuri. He refused to let me see my
mother. This past Tuesday, I managed to run away and reach my
mother. He followed me there and tried to force me to leave with
him again. He told my mother also to accompany him. When he
returned that night and continued threatening us, we called the
police.....".
14. However, when PW1 was examined before the trial court she
turned hostile and deposed that the accused had not done any wrong
acts on her.
15. PW2, the mother of PW1 also turned hostile to the
prosecution case. However, PW2 admitted that she had accompanied
PW1 for medical examination at LBS Hospital, where she was
informed that her daughter was pregnant and that her daughter gave
birth to a male child in July 2017.
16. PW15, Casualty Medical Officer, LBS Hospital deposed that
on 29.07.2017 at 12.45 PM, PW1 aged about 14 years was brought
to hospital by the police for her medical examination and for taking
blood sample. He had drawn the blood sample of the victim. The
sample was sealed with the seal of the hospital and he had handed it
over the same to the IO Ex. PW12/E is the report prepared by him.
17. PW13, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL Rohini, who
conducted the DNA research and prepared the Report marked as
Ext. PW13/A deposed that on 02.08.2017, he had received 3 sealed
parcels with the seal of 'LBSHOSP KP' in the office of FSL Rohini
vide FSL No. FSL NO.2017/13-5754. On 23.02.2018, he received
two sealed parcels with the seal of 'LBSHOSP KR and 'CMO DHAS
DELHI' in the office of FSL Rohini vide FSL No. FSL NO.
2017/13-5754 (FM). He conducted DNA examination upon which
DNA profiling (SIR analysis) were performed. The sample was
found sufficient to conclude that the source of Ex.4 (blood sample of
accused) and Ex.5 (blood sample of victim) are the biological father
and mother of the source of Ex.2 (blood sample of baby boy). The
report has been marked as Ex.PW13/A.
18. The fact that PW1 was a minor at the time of the incident is
not disputed. The fact that she delivered a child is also not disputed.
Though PW1 has turned hostile to the prosecution case, she
admitted that her blood sample as well as the blood sample of the
child born to her had been collected. PW5 and PW15 have
substantiated the fact that the blood samples of the victim and her
child had been taken and handed over to the investigating officer.
The accused has also admitted that his blood samples had been taken
during the course of the investigation. PW12 deposed that he had
entrusted the blood sample of PW14, who, in turn, sent the samples
to the FSL through PW9 vide Ex. PW9/A. PW9 handed over the
blood sample to the FSL vide acknowledgment marked as Ex.
PW9/B. PW13 conducted the DNA examination on the samples and
concluded in the report marked as Ex. PW13/A that the blood
sample on examination showed that PW1 and the accused were the
biological parents of the child born to PW1. PW1 when examined,
admitted that she was pregnant when the police produced her in the
hospital for examination. This fact is admitted by PW2 also. As
noticed earlier, the testimony of PW1 that the accused was in a live
in relationship with PW2/ her mother has not been disputed.
Therefore, the accused had access to PW1. Though PW1 and PW2
are hostile to the prosecution case, it is clear from the scientific
evidence that the accused was responsible for the pregnancy of
PW1. The testimony of PW13 to the effect that the examination of
the blood samples showed the accused to be the father of the child
born to PW1 has not been discredited in any way. In fact, there is
practically no cross-examination of PW13. In such circumstances, I
find no reason(s) to reject or discard the testimony of PW13 or the
findings in this regard. In such circumstances, the finding of guilt of
the accused by the trial court for the offences punishable under
Section 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the PoCSO Act
suffers from no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.
19. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed.
20. Applications, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 22, 2026/kd
