Prem Prakash Vs State

¶1

$~

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Reserved on: 17^th December, 2025 Date of Decision: 20^th December, 2025

¶4

CRL.A. 1330/2014 PREM PRAKASH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Kunal Rawat, Ms. Prity Kumari, and Ms. Ritu Gaur, Advocates. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with Mr. Sunil Singh Rawat, Mr. Arsalan Naik and Mr. Siddharth Goyal, Advocates with SI Barham Prakash, P.S. Sultan Puri. Ms. Sanya Kumar, Advocates (DHCLSC) for Victim.

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGMENT

¶6

The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C” ) has been preferred against judgment of conviction dated 17^th May, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment” ) and against order on sentence dated 22^nd May, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order on sentence” ) passed by the learned ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court” ) in Sessions Case bearing no. 75/2013 arising out of the FIR bearing no. 192/2013, registered at P.S. Sultan Puri, Delhi.

¶7

The appellant vide the impugned judgment was convicted for the offence under Section 9(m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

¶8

Page 1 of 9

¶9

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶12

Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO”). The appellant vide the impugned order on sentence was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 05 years under Section 10 of POCSO, alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was sentenced to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 01 month.

¶13

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9^th March, 2013 at about 1:00 PM, the victim, aged about 05 years, was alone in her house. Her father was watching television in a nearby room of his neighbour. Taking advantage of the fact that the victim was alone in her room, the appellant, who was the son of Landlord of parents of the victim, committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim. The father of the victim, namely, Sh. Pardesi Das heard her cries and rushed to the room in which the victim had been playing and saw that the appellant had removed underwear of the victim and had also opened the chain of his pants and was lying down on the victim. On seeing the father of the victim, appellant ran away from there. On the statement of the father of the victim, the FIR was registered. The victim was thereafter taken to the SGM Hospital for medical examination. The statement of the victim was got recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. The appellant was arrested.

¶14

Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed. Charge under Section 3(a) of POCSO punishable under Section 4 of POCSO was framed against the appellant on the allegations that on 9^th March, 2013, at about 1:00 PM, at jhuggi no. 647, F-6 Block, HGI Labour Colony, Sultanpuri, he committed penetrative sexual assault upon the victim, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove

¶15

Page 2 of 9

¶16

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶19

its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, wherein the appellant denied incriminating evidences, pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. The trial resulted in conviction under Section 9(m) of POCSO for the aggravated sexual assault. The prosecution failed to prove the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(a) of POCSO punishable under Section 4 of POCSO. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said conviction, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, learned APP for the State and the learned Counsel for the victim and have examined the record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment on the basis of surmises and conjectures which is the against the evidence on record. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which make the case of the prosecution doubtful. It was argued that the family of the victim was residing as tenants in a premises owned by the father of the appellant and that the rent of the said premises had remained unpaid for about one month and owing to this dispute, the father of the victim falsely implicated the appellant in the present case with an ulterior motive. Thus, from the evidence placed on record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.

¶21

On the other hand, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the victim have argued that the trial court has passed the impugned

¶22

Page 3 of 9

¶23

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶26

judgment after considering the evidence on record. The evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The arguments of the appellant are without any merit, and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

It is undisputed fact that the age of the child victim was 05 years at the time of the alleged incident.

¶28

The victim has been examined as PW-8 and has deposed as follows:

¶29

“ Q. Kya hua tha? Ans. Mein darwaje me kundi laga raha tha. Chhotu aaya aur mujhe zameen par leta diya. Q. Chhotu Kaun hai? Ans . Chhotu ko police ne thana (Police Station) me bandh kar diya. Usne mera kachhi uttar kar mere uppar late gaya. Q. Phirapnekyakiya? Ans. Mein chilaya, papa aaya, papa ne Chhotu ko mar peet kiya. Q. Chhotu ne aur bhi kuch kiya tha? Ans. Chhotue gaal par kata tha (the witness has pointed with her finger on both her cheeks) Q. Kya aap pehle bhi Court me aaye ho? Ans. Ha. Q. Tab apne court me sari baat batai thi jo aaj batai hai? Ans. Ha, aunti ko batai thi(the witness appeared for her statement u/s.164 CrPC before Ms.Rajni Ranga, learned MM). Q. Kya aap Chhotu ko pechan sakte ho? Ans. Ha.”

¶30

In her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant, PW-

¶31

8 has deposed as follows:

¶32

“ Q. Kya apko aaj papa ne bataya tha ki kya bola hai ? Ans. Papa ne nahi.”

¶33

PW-8 has identified the appellant as the person who has committed the

¶34

Page 4 of 9

¶35

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶38

alleged offence.

¶39

PW-9 Pardesi Das is the father of the Victim and he has deposed that he was residing with his family as tenant at the address F-6/273 at Sultanpuri. On 9^th March, 2013 at about 1:00 PM, he was watching television in the room of his neighbour. At that time his daughter i.e. the victim child, aged about 05 years, was playing alone in the room. Suddenly, he heard the cries of his daughter from his room and he immediately rushed towards there. He saw his daughter was weeping bitterly and her clothes were removed. There was no one in the room except his daughter. He saw the appellant going towards the main gate of the house at that time. At that time his daughter was weeping and was perplexed and could not tell me much. She did not tell anything to him later on also. He filed the complaint with the police, which is Ex. PW-2/A.

¶40

In cross-examination on behalf of the appellant PW-9 had deposed that he had not seen the appellant doing anything with her daughter with his own eyes. At the time of the said incident, one month rent was due. He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the appellant to avoid the payment of rent.

¶41

PW-6 Dr. Supriya, has examined the victim and proved her observation is point X to X-1 on the MLC of the victim which is Ex. PW3/A. She has deposed that there was no history of vaginal penetration found. However, biting marks over both cheeks were found present. No visible injury marks were seen.

¶42

It is a well-settled law that the appellant can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence, and no corroboration is required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate insisting

¶43

Page 5 of 9

¶44

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶47

on corroboration of her statement. Minor Contradictions should not be a ground for throwing out the testimony of the prosecutrix.

¶48

In this respect, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Sahu V State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1610 as follows:

¶49

"5.5.2. This Court observed that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmities and the factor of probability does not render it unworthy evidence, the conviction could base solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix. It was further observed that as a general rule there is no reason to insist on the corroboration accept in certain cases, it was stated. 5.5.3. The medical evidence may not be available in which circumstance, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix could be sufficient to base the conviction.

¶50

"The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix."

¶51

In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1669 Of 2012 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles governing the testimony of a child-witness as follows:

¶52

“58. We summarize our conclusion as under:- …

¶53

(VII) There is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered. A child witness who exhibits the

¶54

Page 6 of 9

¶55

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶58

demeanour of any other competent witness and whose evidence inspires confidence can be relied upon without any need for corroboration and can form the sole basis for conviction. If the evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the crime without improvements or embellishments, the same does not require any corroboration whatsoever.

¶59

(VIII) Corroboration of the evidence of the child witness may be insisted upon by the courts as measure of caution and prudence where the evidence of the child is found to be either tutored or riddled with material discrepancies or contradictions. There is no hard and fast rule when such corroboration would be desirous or required, and would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.”

¶60

The victim in her testimony gave a relevant account of the alleged incident of sexual assault committed upon her by the appellant. The testimony of the victim is also corroborated by her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C which is Ex. PW-13/X. Moreover, the testimony of the victim as to the fact that she was bitten on her cheeks was also supported by her MLC which is Ex. PW-3/A which shows the presence of biting marks over her both cheeks. PW-9 also supports the case of the prosecution as he reached at the spot after hearing the cried of the victim and has seen that the clothes of the victim were removed and has also seen the appellant going towards the main gate of the house at that time.

¶61

The appellant has failed to show any such material contradictions in the testimony of the victim that would affect the case of the prosecution on merits. The material facts, as deposed by the victim, are reliable and

¶62

Page 7 of 9

¶63

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶66

trustworthy. There are no good and sufficient reasons to discard the evidence of the victim.

¶67

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was falsely implicated on account of unpaid rent by the family of the victim. However, apart from a mere suggestion put to the PW-9, no material has been come on record in his cross examination to show that any such dispute existed or that the same was of such a nature as would prompt the family of the victim to falsely implicate the appellant in a serious offence under the POCSO. It is inconceivable that a family would subject a minor child to the trauma of criminal proceedings merely to settle a trivial dispute relating to unpaid rent. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this argument.

¶68

In view of the analysis above, as this Court finds the version of the victim as cogent, consistent and reliable, so, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed aggravated sexual assault upon the victim. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial court does not call for any interference and is affirmed.

¶69

The trial court has awarded the minimum sentence of 05 years to the appellant as provided under Section 10 of POCSO. After considering the gravity of the offence proved against the appellant and the age of the victim, this Court is of the view that the impugned order on sentence also does not call for any interference and it is upheld.

¶70

The appellant is directed to surrender within a period of 14 days from today before the concerned Jail Superintendent and serve his remaining sentence. His bail bond will thereupon stand cancelled.

¶71

Page 8 of 9

¶72

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶73

Signature Not Verified

¶74

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

¶75

The concerned Jail Superintendent is directed to file a compliance report with regard to the surrender of the appellant before the concerned trial court. In case the appellant fails to surrender, the concerned trial court shall take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to execute the sentence. 15. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 16. A Copy of this judgment be communicated forthwith to the concerned trial court as well as to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.

¶76

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE

¶77

DECEMBER 20, 2025/ v / ik

¶78

Page 9 of 9

¶79

CRL.A. 1330/2014

¶80

Signature Not Verified

¶81

Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:2 0.12.2025 15:18:30

Prem Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar @ Rajman Vs State

Sumit Sharma Vs State

Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs State Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Umesh Kumar S/O Hori Lal Vs State (Gnct) of Delhi

G.C. Jain Vs C.B.I.

Sh Baljeet Singh & Anr. Vs Sh Bijendra Singh & Anr.