CRL.A. 269/2025 Page 1 of 23 $~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 27 th August, 2025 + CRL.A. 269/2025 & CRL.M.A. 6930/2025, CRL.M.(BAIL) 486/2025 ASHISH ...Appellant Through: Mr. Akshya and Ms. Nupur Jhangala, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ...Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AP for the State with Mr. Naresh Dagar, Advocate. SI Bharat, PS: Uttam Nagar, W/SI Sushma, PS: Nangloi Metro, Ms. Soni Kampa, Senior Scientific Oficer, FSL Rohini. Ms. Inderjet Sidhu, Advocate for the Prosecutrix. Mr. Abhishek, Advocate for R - K. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral): 1. The present appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1 Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 ³%166´ CRL.A. 269/2025 Page 2 of 23 1973 2 assails judgment of conviction dated 04 th December, 2024 and order on sentence dated 17 th January, 2025 passed by the Court of ASJ ( FTSC ), ( POCSO ) - 01, South - West District, Dwarka Courts in SC No. 223/2020 . These proceedings emanate from FIR N o. 443/202 0 registered at P.S. Uttam Nagar for the ofence s under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 3 and Section 6 of t he Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 . 4 2. A conviction under Section 376 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act entails the gravest stigma and the severest of sentences ; and therefore , this Court is tasked to examine whether the finding of guilt is borne out by reliable evidence and in acordance with settled legal principles. The jurisdiction under Section 415(2) BNS/Section 374(2) CrPC is not confined to erors of law alone , but extends to a reappraisal of the evidence, ensuring that both the conviction and the sentence withstand the scrutiny of fairness, legality, and proportionality. Factual Background 3 . The case of the P rosecution is as follows: 3 .1 . On 6 th May, 2020, information was received at P.S. Uttam Nagar from DDU Hospital stating that a young girl , ( µ.¶ , the Prosecutrix), had been brought by her mother for medical termination of pregnancy. The information was recorded vide DD Entry No. 30B, and the same was entrusted to ASI Manoj (PW - 6), who, acompanied by W/Constable Premlata, proceded to the hospital. After some time, the Investigating 2 ³&U . P . C . ´ 3 ³,3&´ 4 ³32&62´ CRL.A. 269/2025 Page 3 of 23 Oficer, 5 W/SI Sushma (PW - 12) also arived at the hospital. Medical examination revealed that the P rosecutrix was 22 weks pregnant. In the SUHVHQFHRIKHUVLVWHUµ1¶DQGIDW PW - 1/A) alleging that her elder brother, Ashish, the Appellant, had subjected her to sexual assault on two or three ocasions, including once shortly after Holi, following which her menstrual cycle ceased in March 2020. 3 .2. On this complaint, the subject FIR was registered and investigation set in motion. During investigation, her statement was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she stated that sexual relations had taken place ZLWKWKH$SSHOODQW³DURXQGRQHRU ZDV³ZLWKKHUFRQVHQW´DQGWKDWV 6 Nevertheless, chargesheet was filed and the Special Court took cognizance on 28 th August, 2020. 3 .3 By order dated 18 th September, 2020, charges were framed against the Appellant under Section 6 read with Section 5(j)(ii) and (l) of the POCSO Act. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3 . 4 . In support of its case, the Prosecution examined twelve witnesses, comprising the P rosecutrix and her imediate family members, the investigating oficers, school and municipal record kepers, and the forensic examiner. For clarity and ease of reference, the witnesses are sumarised in the table below : PW No. Name / Description Role / Deposition PW - 1 The Prosecutrix Complainant; aleged sexual asault; statement 5 ³,2´ 6 Translation of ³+ROLVHNDULEHN - do din pehle mere bhai aur mere bech sexual relations huye jo meri PDU]LVHKXDWKD0DLNRLNDU\DZDKLQDKLFKDKWL CRL.A. 269/2025 Page 4 of 23 PW No. Name / Description Role / Deposition under Section 164 CrPC. PW - 2 Father of the Prosecutrix Present at hospital; witnes to complaint; spoke on circumstances. PW - 3 Mother of the Prosecutrix Brought the P rosecutrix to hospital for MTP; coroborated disclosure. PW - 4 Sister of the Prosecutrix Present when prosecutrix made complaint at hospital. PW - 5 HC Kuldeep Singh, MHC(M), P.S. Utam Nagar Proved deposit and handling of case property. PW - 6 ASI Manoj Kumar Recorded DD entry 30B; visited DDU Hospital; facilitated FIR registration. PW - 7 HC Umesh Accompanied IO; prepared site plan of residence. PW - 8 Purshpendra Khatri, TGT, Utam Nagar Produced schol records; DOB: 3 rd October, 207. PW - 9 Soni Khampa, Junior Forensic Examiner, FSL Rohini Conducted forensic analysis of biological exhibits. PW - 10 Pradeep Kumar, Record Keeper, Birth & Death Dept. Produced birth record; DOB: 2 nd November, 204. PW - 1 Baladin Ahirwar, Principal Produced schol record; DOB: 15 th September, 204. PW - 12 W/SI Sushma, Investigating Officer Conducted investigation; colected evidence; filed charge - sheet. 3 . 5 . Upon conclusion of the Prosecution evidence, the statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C . All incriminating circumstances appearing in the record were put to him. The Appellant denied the allegations in toto , asserting that he had ben falsely implicated, and further claimed that the Prosecutrix had not herself made any complaint against him. He, however, chose not to lead any defence evidence. The matter thereafter proceded to final arguments. 3 . 6 . Upon consideration of the age of the Prosecutrix, the depositions of P rosecution witnesses, and the medical and forensic evidence brought on CRL.A. 269/2025 Page 5 of 23 record, the Trial Court held that the Appellant had subjected the Prosecutrix to repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault, which culminated in her pregnancy. By judgment dated 4 th December, 2024, he was convicted for the ofences punishable under Section 6 read with Section 5(j)(ii) and Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act, 2012. By the order on sentence dated 17 th January, 2025, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of WZHQW\\HDUVDORQJZLWKDILQHRI - . $SSHOODQW¶V&DVH 4 . Mr. Akshya, counsel for the Appellant, assails the conviction and sentence on multiple grounds, urging that the impugned judgment sufers from grave infirmities and rests on assu mptions , rather than reliable proof. His submissions are sumarised below : 4 .1. The conviction of the Appellant is unsustainable in law, being founded solely on DNA evidence, without adequate coroboration from oral testimony. Although the P rosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses, none of them, suceded in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court brushed aside critical contradictions and inconsistencies, instead resorting to presumptions to arive at guilt. 4 .2. The evidence of the P rosecutrix (PW - 1) is diametrically opposed to the P rosecution ¶V case. In her deposition, she stated that she was in a relationship with one Rahul and that her physical relations were with him prior to Holi, 2020. She maintained that her pregnancy came to light only when her mother noticed changes in her body and took her for medical