Delhi High Court
State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Satish Kumar Mandal on 17 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:17.06.2025
+ CRL.L.P. 204/2022
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner
versus
SATISH KUMAR MANDAL ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State.
SI Sapna Sharma, PS Chhawla.
For the Respondent :
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘) seeking grant of leave to
challenge the judgment dated 24.09.2020 (hereafter ‘the impugned
judgment’), in Sessions Case No. 217/2017 arising out of FIR No.
276/2016, registered at Police Station Chhawla, whereby the learned
Trial Court acquitted the accused/ respondent for the offence under
Section 10 read with 9(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO’).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 204/2022 Page 1 of 7
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
2. The FIR in the present case was registered pursuant to a
complaint made by the mother of the prosecutrix alleging that on
14.07.2016 at around 4:00 p.m. while she was sleeping, the
prosecutrix came inside the room and informed her that the
accused/respondent had allegedly touched her private parts with his
finger and kissed her on the cheek. Since her husband was not at home
she did not inform the same to anybody.
3. At 9:30 p.m. when her husband returned back from work, she
narrated the entire incident to him, whereafter, he dialled 100 number
and informed the police.
4. The police thereafter recorded the statement of the prosecutrix
under Section 164 of the CrPC and arrested the accused/respondent.
After competition of investigation, chargesheet was filed under
Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of POCSO.
5. The learned Trial Court on 01.11.2017 framed charges under
Section 10 read with Section 9(m) of POCSO against the
accused/respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The accused/respondent in his statement under Section 313 of
the CrPC denied the entire evidence against him and stated that he has
been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. The learned Trial Court noting the contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses acquitted the
accused/respondent by the impugned judgment.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 204/2022 Page 2 of 7
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
that the prosecutrix identified the accused/respondent as the person
who had committed the alleged offence.
9. He submitted that the prosecutrix in her statement under Section
164 CrPC as well as in her examination in chief before the learned
Trial Court narrated the true incident which categorically showed that
the respondent had sexually assaulted her.
10. He further submitted that even though the victim during her
cross had resiled from her statement, however, the benefit of the same
cannot be granted to the accused.
11. I have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and
perused the record.
Analysis
12. It is trite law that this Court must exercise caution and should
only interfere in an appeal against acquittal where there are substantial
and compelling reasons to do so. At the stage of grant of leave to
appeal, the High Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made
out in favour of the appellant or if such arguable points have been
raised which would merit interference. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar: (2008) 9 SCC
475 held as under:
“19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal
by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no
appeal “shall be entertained except with the leave of the High
Court”. It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is
aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of
Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by
sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an
appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High CourtSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 204/2022 Page 3 of 7
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the
application filed under sub- section (3) of Section 378 of the
Code.
20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether
requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court
must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has
been made out or arguable points have been raised and not
whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside.
21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of
universal application that each and every petition seeking leave
to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a
trial court must be allowed by the appellate court and every
appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But it also
cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter
into minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave
observing that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial
court could not be said to be “perverse” and, hence, no leave
should be granted.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment acquitted
the accused/respondent for the said offences on the ground that there
were material inconsistencies in the depositions made by the
prosecutrix, her father and her mother.
14. The learned Trial Court noted that none of the material
witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution.
15. The prosecutrix in the compliant made by her mother alleged
that the accused/respondent had touched her private parts with his
finger and kissed her on her cheek. In her statement under Section 164
of the CrPC she deposed that the accused/respondent had licked her
cheek. Further, in her testimony before the Court she stated that the
accused/respondent had licked her private parts while pointing
towards her private parts.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 204/2022 Page 4 of 7
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
16. However, in her cross-examination she resiled and deposed that
the accused/respondent had slapped her on her cheek and done nothing
except that. She further deposed that she had informed her mother that
the accused/respondent slapped her.
17. PW-2, the father of the prosecutrix deposed that he had received
a phone call from her wife stating that the accused/respondent had
thrown water on their staircase. He deposed that as a result his house
got flooded and his wife had an altercation with the
accused/respondent.
18. He stated that he had signed some papers as prepared by the
Investigating Officer but due to his illiteracy, he did not know as to
what was written in the said papers. Further, he deposed that the
prosecutrix was taken to a hospital for medical examination but
nothing was found against the accused/respondent.
19. PW-7, mother of the prosecutrix deposed that on the date of the
incident, while she was sleeping, the prosecutrix informed her that the
accused/respondent had thrown water from the staircase as a result her
room was flooded. She inquired from the accused/respondent as to
why he had thrown water and asked him not to do so, whereafter it is
alleged that he started threatening to kill her.
20. She further stated that she informed about the incident to her
nephew who dialled 100 and informed the police. In her cross-
examination she denied having made any compliant regarding sexual
assault by the accused/respondent.
21. From a perusal of the said testimonies the learned Trial Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 204/2022 Page 5 of 7
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
noted that both the mother and the father of the prosecutrix had not
supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. It was noted
that the father of the prosecutrix denied the fact that his wife informed
him that the accused/respondent had sexually assaulted the
prosecutrix. He further denied having made any call to the police and
in the contrary, stated that it was his wife who had informed the
police.
22. It was further noted by the learned Trial Court that the mother
of the prosecutrix in her cross-examination denied the fact that the
prosecutrix informed her that the accused/respondent had sexually
assaulted her.
23. It is trite law that the accused can be convicted solely on the
basis of evidence of the prosecutrix as long as same inspires
confidence and corroboration is not necessary for the same [Ref. Moti
Lal v. State of M.P. : (2008) 11 SCC 20]. However, as noted above,
the testimony of the prosecutrix is full of inconsistencies and the same
does not inspire confidence. The benefit of the same has to go to the
accused/respondent.
24. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the learned Trial Court
rightly acquitted the accused/respondent. In the present case none of
the material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The
prosecutrix supported the case of the prosecution till her examination-
in-chief, but resiled in her cross-examination. The allegations levelled
against the accused/respondent were not supported by any other
corroborative evidence either in the form of the evidence given by
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 204/2022 Page 6 of 7
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37
mother and father of the victim or any medical evidence.
25. Further two neighbours of the accused/respondent were
examined as defence witnesses who deposed that an altercation had
taken place between the mother of the prosecutrix and the
accused/respondent, due to which she had called the police, however,
they also denied any incident of sexual assault of the prosecutrix.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no infirmity with the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Trial Court and the State has not been able to establish a prima
facie case in its favour and no credible ground has been raised to
accede to the State’s request to grant leave to appeal in the present
case.
27. The leave petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 17, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.L.P. 204/2022 Page 7 of 7
Signing Date:17.06.2025
17:52:37