$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 329/2017 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for state. SI Pankaj Kumar, PS Bhajanpura. versus PARVEZ .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay with Mr. Varun Ranjan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 8968/2017 (CONDONATION OF DELAY) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. CRL.L.P. 329/2017 3. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeks to assail the order of acquittal dated 04.11.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.44689/15 for offences Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:10.07.2026 18:33:00 Signature Not Verified punishable under Sections 376(2)(g)/366/363/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The facts of the case indicate that, the complainant, Smt. Islaman, mother of the victim, reported that her minor daughter had gone missing from their house on 19.08.2011. Initially, an FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered. On 04.09.2011, the complainant produced the victim, who was then subjected to a medical examination. Based on her statement, Sections 376/506/34 IPC were added. 5. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Parvez, along with two other unidentified persons, had kidnapped and repeatedly raped the minor victim over a period of 15 days. The bone-age test later opined that the victim was between 14 to 16 years of age at the time of the incident. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, and the accused was charged under Sections 363, 366/34, 376(2)(g), and 506/34 of the IPC. 6. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove its case. The trial Court, however, on a critical and detailed examination of the evidence produced during the course of the trial, did not find the commission of the offence proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It was noted that there was an unexplained inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR. The victim's testimony was found to contain material improvements from her previous statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC. The recovery of the victim from Baraut was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and the place of the alleged crime remained unknown. 7. Furthermore, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report found no semen on any of the exhibits or samples collected from the victim, and her medical examination revealed only an old tear of the hymen, with no fresh Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:10.07.2026 18:33:00 Signature Not Verified injuries. Consequently, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused. 8. The Court has perused the findings rendered by the trial Court and wholly concurs with the same. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, has laid down the principles governing appellate interference in appeals against acquittal. It held that while the appellate Court has wide powers of re-appreciating the evidence, it may only overrule or disturb the trial Court's acquittal if it has ‘very substantial and compelling reasons’ for doing so. The relevant principles are as under: “70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court‟s acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has 'very substantial and compelling reasons' for doing so. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in „grave miscarriage of justice‟; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material documents like dying declarations/report of the Ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached—one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction—the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 10. The Court do not find any reason to interfere into the order passed by 1 (2008) 10 SCC 450 Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:10.07.2026 18:33:00 the Sessions Court. 11. Finding no justification, the application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 7, 2026 abhinav Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:10.07.2026 18:33:00