State v. Pawan
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court refused to condone a 541-day delay in filing a Criminal Leave Petition against an acquittal. It dismissed the petition on merits, upholding the trial court's decision to acquit the respondent of penetrative sexual assault charges, citing the late emergence of the specific allegation and lack of medical corroboration.
What did the court decide?
Application for condonation of delay and Criminal Leave Petition dismissed; acquittal on Section 6 POCSO and Section 376 IPC upheld.
What the court decided
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Reserved on: 10.04.2026 Pronounced on: 07.05.2026
- CRL.L.P. 232/2024 & CRL.M.A. 13696/2024
STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Adv. versus PAWAN .....Respondent Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
- The captioned Criminal Leave Petition has been filed, seeking conviction of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [“ POCSO Act ”] and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“ IPC ”], and for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in SC No. 692/2017, FIR No. 257/2016, registered at Police Station Kalyan Puri, under Section 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 376 IPC, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid offences, while convicting him under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Signature Not Verified
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone an extraordinary delay of 541 days in filing Criminal Leave Petition despite routine administrative explanations.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal on charges of penetrative sexual assault due to alleged immaterial inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.
Whether the allegation of penetrative sexual assault constituted a material improvement over the FIR allegations warranting conviction under Section 6 POCSO and Section 376 IPC.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
State
- respondent
Pawan
Coram
Ravinder Dudeja
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court