Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Radha Kanwar, P.S. Subhash Place v. SANAUL KHAN S/o Late Lukman Khan B/ on 09 May 2025

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Leave Petition under Section 378(3) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner against the Judgment dated 24.06.2020 whereby the Appellant has been acquitted in

FIR No. 250/2018, under Section 376(2) (n) read with Section 506 IPC, For the reasons stated in the Petition, it is allowed. Police Station Subhash Place, Delhi. 2. 3. 4. The Leave Petition is accordingly disposed of. Registry is directed to register the Appeal and assign number to it. CRL. A. _______/2025 (to be numbered) 5. The Appellant/State has challenged the Judgment dated 24.06.2020 whereby the Appellant has been acquitted for the offences under Section 376(2) (n) read with Section 506 IPC in FIR No. 250/2018, Police Station Subhash Place, Delhi 6. The factual background of prosecution case is that on 29.06.2018, Prosecutrix made a call at Help Line No. 181 and disclosed her whereabouts in response to a telephonic call received by her from Women Counselling Cell. The police reached the address at Shakurpur, Delhi and Prosecutrix was counseled by NGO. She gave her complaint to WASI Parvati wherein she stated that about one year ago, she had come to Delhi from Jharkhand with one Pappu in search of a job, who left her at the house of one Amit at Shakurpur. Amit got her employed at a Kothi at Yamuna Nagar, where she worked for one year. Thereafter, she came back to the office of Amit, where Sanaul Khan used to do the work of picking and dropping the girls at their Workplace. The Prosecutrix alleged that he made forcible and repeated physical relations with her from 24.06.2018 to 26.06.2018. She alleged that Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:24.05.2025 11:32:19 CRL.L.P. 120/2021 Page 2 of 8 on 28.06.2018, Sanaul Khan was insistent to take her to Bangalore to work as maid, to which she refused on which he gave her beatings. Therefore, she made a rescue call, upon which the police arrived and she gave the Complaint. 7. On the Complaint of the Prosecutrix, FIR No. 250/2018 was registered under Sections 376/506 IPC at Police Station Subhash Place, Delhi. The Investigating Officer got the Prosecutrix physically examined; collected the MLC prepared the site plan and got the statement of the Prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the learned MM on

30.06.2018. 8. The Respondent/Accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, Chargesheet was filed in the Court. 9. Vide Order

27.10.2018, Charge Sections 376(2)(n)/323/506 IPC was framed against the Respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. The Prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. PW- 2/ASI Dhruv Raj and PW-3/HC Awadesh on receipt of the call and DD had gone to meet the victim along with Counsellor of Women Helpline. They had produced the victim before the Investigating Officer ASI Parvati. PW- 4/HC Munender and PW-7/w/Constable Suman got Ossification Test of victim done.

11. PW-5/Dr. Aparna Aggarwal, Senior Resident (OBS and Gyne) proved the MLC EX PW1/A of the Prosecutrix/ Victim.

12. PW-6/Dr. Rajiv Ranjan, HoD (Radiology) proved the Ossification Report PW6/B. Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:24.05.2025 11:32:19 CRL.L.P. 120/2021 Page 3 of 8

13. PW-8/HC Jai Ram arrested the Respondent/Accused vide Arrest Memo EX PW8/A, and recorded his Disclosure Statement PW8/B and also got him medically examined.

14. PW-9/ASI Parvaati is the Investigating Officer of this case who had recorded statement of the Prosecutrix/ Victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW9/2) before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. She also got prepared the site plan PW1/D of the Placement Agency at the instance of the Prosecutrix and got the Potency Test EX PW9/3 of the accused got done.

15. The Respondent/accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded innocence and claimed trial. He got examined DW-1/Pappu in his defence. 16. The learned Trial Court in the light of testimony of the witnesses and material on record held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case by way of cogent and reliable evidence, so as to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused/Sanaul Khan was, therefore, given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the Charges framed against him. 17. The Appellant/State has challenged the acquittal on the ground that the learned Trial Court has erroneously concluded that Prosecution has failed to establish its case as testimony of the Victim/ Prosecutrix is sufficient to prove the prosecution case. 18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the victim has given consistent statement in her examination-in-chief and had categorically deposed about the commission of offence by Respondent/Accused. The victim has deposed that the accused had established physical relations with her by putting her under threat to kill her Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:24.05.2025 11:32:19 CRL.L.P. 120/2021 Page 4 of 8 and there was no question of raising hue and cries. For this reason, she also did not disclose the incident to anyone before making the Complaint on

29.06.2018. She fully supported the case of prosecution and corroborated her previous statement under Section 161 as well as under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 19. The ld. ASJ should have examined the broader possibilities of the case and not swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of Prosecutrix, as has been observed by the Apex Court in