Delhi High Court
Mithlesh @ Raju vs The State on 25 August, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 20th August, 2025
Date of Decision : 25th August, 2025
+ CRL.A. 40/2007
MITHLESH @ RAJU .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Mallika Parmar, Advocate with
Appellant in person.
versus
THE STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for the
State with SI Ajay, PS-Narela.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGMENT
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section
374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
the “CrPC“) against the judgment dated 26th October, 2006 (hereinafter
referred to as the “impugned judgement”) and against the
Order-on-Sentence dated 06th November, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the
“impugned Order on Sentence”) passed by the court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) in
Sessions Case bearing No. 161/2006 arising out of the FIR bearing No.
130/2004 registered at Police Station-Narela, Delhi. The Appellant vide the
impugned judgement was held guilty for committing the offence punishable
under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
the “IPC“). The Appellant vide the impugned Order on Sentence dated 06th
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 1 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
November, 2006 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of 10 years along with a fine of ₹10,000/-, and in default of payment
of fine, convict was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of one year.
2. Briefly stated, the Prosecution’s case as reflected in the impugned
judgment is as follows:
“Prosecutrix and her mother had appeared in the PS, where
statement of prosecutrix was recorded to the effect, that she
resided at Narela and worked in a factory at Kundli. Her father
was a drunkard and separated from her mother. About five years
earlier her mother had fallen sick and her co-worker namely
Mithlesh @ Raju had helped in her treatment. Her mother had
started living with said Mithlesh and the prosecutrix resided with
her grandmother in Village-Karala. About two years earlier
prosecutrix also shifted with the mother. The mother was then
residing in Qutubgarh. At Qutubgarh when her mother was away
for work, accused Mithlesh @ Raju during the day tied her mouth
and hands with dupatta and committed rape upon her. He had also
threatened that in case, she told any person, he would kill her
mother. He had regularly been repeating this offence. About six
months earlier, they shifted from the Qutubgarh house to the
house at Narela. At this house, also he had committed raped upon
her on several occasions. The prosecutrix had not told this to any
person on account of fear. The accused also used to beat her
mother and did not permit the prosecutrix to go her gran mother’s
house. About a week earlier he had repeated the offence despite
resistance by the prosecutrix. He pressed her neck and she had
sustained nail injury on her neck. On the day of the complaint as
well, her mother was away to deliver stitching material, when the
accused entered the house and committed rape upon her. He also
threatened her to marry him. When he left the house she narrated
the entire occurrence to her mother and they had then both come
to the PS. On the basis of the complaint, offence under Section
376/506 IPC. Thereafter an FIR was registered.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 2 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
3. During the investigation, the Prosecutrix was medically examined, the
Appellant was arrested and was also medically examined. Upon completion
of Investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Sections 376/506 IPC in the
Court. Charge under Sections 376/506 IPC was framed against the Appellant
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Prosecution, in order to
prove its case, examined 10 witnesses. The statement of the Appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein the Appellant had denied
incriminating evidences and pleaded innocence and claimed false
implication. The trial resulted in conviction, as aforesaid. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned APP
for the State and have examined the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Trial Court has
passed the impugned judgment on the basis of surmises and conjectures, and
which is against the facts of the case. There are material contradictions in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which make the case of the
prosecution doubtful. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that PW-2, mother of the Prosecutrix, was well aware of the entire
relationship and she was a party to the offence with the Appellant. The
Prosecutrix had voluntary physical relations with the Appellant. From the
evidence on record, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the Appellant. On these grounds, it is prayed that
the impugned judgement be set aside and the Appellant be acquitted.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has argued that the Trial
Court has passed the impugned judgment after considering the evidences on
record. The evidences produced on behalf of the prosecution have proved the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 3 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
case beyond reasonable doubt. The arguments of the Appellant are without
any merits. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Prosecutrix has been examined as PW-1 and she has deposed that
in the year 2002 she was living with her grandmother at Shiv Vihar, Karala.
They were very poor people. Her father was a drunkard and was not
earning well, so her mother started living separately at Qutubgarh. They
stayed at Qutubgarh till 2003. In the year 2003, her mother started living at
Swatantra Nagar, Narela and she also started living in house no. 681, Gali
No. 4A on rent. Accused-Mithlesh used to work with her mother at
Qutubgarh when they were living at Qutubgarh and when they shifted to
Swatantra Nagar, Narela, Accused-Mithlesh also started living with them.
Accused-Mithlesh used to live near her mother in the house at Qutubgarh as
well. He used to commit rape upon her at Qutubgarh as well as Narela and
had been committing rape upon her for two years since the year 2002 till 31st
March, 2004. Accused-Mithlesh used to beat the prosecutrix and her mother
with chappals and belts, and threatened her not to tell anyone about these
incidents. Due to fear, she did not inform anyone until 31st March, 2004.
Accused used to tie her mouth and hands and legs with chunni and then used
to commit rape upon her. Accused did not allow her to come to her house or
tell about the incident to anybody. One week prior to 31st March, 2004,
accused tied her neck with chunni as a result of which she got injury on her
neck and then he committed rape upon her under the influence of liquor. On
31st March, 2004, at about 12 noon/1 p.m., her mother had gone outside the
house to supply some articles to someone when accused entered the house
under the influence of liquor and then he tied her hands and committed rape
upon her without her consent and told her that “TU MERI RAHEGI” and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 4 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
also told her that if she married someone else, he would spoil her life and
then he went away. When the mother of the prosecutrix came back to her
home, prosecutrix along with her mother somehow gathered some courage
for filing a report in P.S. and her statement was recorded by the police which
is Ex. PW 1/A. Thereafter, she was medically examined.
In cross-examination on behalf of the Appellant, PW-1 has deposed
that her mother was living as a wife of the accused and that all of them used
to sleep in the same room. The first time the accused committed rape upon
her, it was at night while she was sleeping beside her mother, and the
accused was sleeping on the floor. Her mother was not aware of the first
sexual intercourse and, therefore, did not wake up. Prosecutrix deposed that
her mother later woke up and went to sleep on the floor in the same room.
She did not tell her mother about the first incident because the accused had
threatened to kill her mother if she told anyone. She further deposed that she
had told about the incident broadly to her mother. She denied the suggestion
that she was having love relation with the accused and that she had sexual
intercourse with the accused with her own consent. She had also denied the
suggestion that her mother became aware of this relationship and under her
pressure, she went to the P.S. and lodged a complaint against the Accused.
8. The mother of the Prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and she has
deposed that she used to do labour work and used to earn her livelihood, as
her husband did not do any work and used to gamble. About five years ago,
she left her matrimonial home along with the prosecutrix and started living at
Qutubgarh. She brought her daughter (Prosecutrix) from her matrimonial
home to the house of the accused. After one and half month of stay of her
daughter with her and accused, her daughter told her that accused had teased
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 5 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
her. Thereafter, her daughter did not tell anything. After about two years,
they shifted to house no. 681, Gali No. 4A, Swatantra Nagar, Narela. One
day prior to 31st March, 2004, her daughter told her that the accused had
been raping her since 2-3 years at the house at Qutubgarh as well as at the
house at Narela and the accused used to tell her not to tell her mother about
the incident, or else he would kill her. The mother of the Prosecutrix was
shocked to hear about this and took the Prosecutrix to the P.S. to lodge a
report.
In cross-examination on behalf of the Appellant, PW-2 has deposed
that she cannot say whether the accused had committed rape upon her
daughter in the night as she used to sleep in the same room. Her daughter had
disclosed the incident of rape for the first time on 31st March, 2004. Her
daughter also wanted to marry the accused and she was very disturbed over
this fact as it was morally incorrect, as she was already living as a wife of the
accused. Because of this reason, she went to the police and filed a complaint
against him. She cannot admit or deny whether her daughter had any
physical relationship with the accused with her own consent as it may have
been possible since her daughter wanted to get married to the accused. The
accused was looking after her daughters including her married daughter as a
father and was discharging his duties as father. She only came to know about
physical relations between her daughter and the accused when they were
staying at Qutubgarh. When she objected and asked them to stop such
activities, the accused told her several times that he wanted to marry the
prosecutrix. She also pressured her daughter to file the present complaint
because the accused, who was living as her husband, wanted to marry her.
9. PW-3, Dr. N. Masand has proved the MLC of the Prosecutrix as Ex.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 6 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
PW3/B and has deposed that she has found no external injury on the person
of the Prosecutrix and had referred the patient to the department of
Gynaecology for further examination.
10. PW-1 has deposed that the Appellant used to commit rape upon her at
Qutubgarh as well as Narela from the year 2002 till 31st March, 2004. She
has further testified that the Appellant used to threaten her with dire
consequences in case she disclosed the incidents to anyone, and therefore,
she remained silent till 31st March, 2004. PW-1 has also specifically deposed
about the incident of rape happened to her on 31st March, 2004 at about
12:00 noon/1:00 p.m. She denied the suggestion of the Appellant that she
was having love relationship with the Appellant. She further denied the
suggestion of the Appellant that she had sexual intercourse with the
Appellant on her own consent and that her mother, upon discovering such
alleged relationship, compelled her to approach the Police Station and lodge
a complaint against the Appellant.
10.1. From the cross-examination of Prosecutrix, it is evident that the
defence of the Appellant is that the Prosecutrix had voluntarily maintained
physical relations with the Appellant as she was having love relationship
with him, but this defence is liable to be rejected as the Prosecutrix in her
testimony has deposed that the Appellant used to commit sexual act with her
against her consent and also used to threaten her. Also, in the
cross-examination of the Prosecutrix, nothing has been come on record to
show that the Prosecutrix was consenting party in their physical relationship.
There is also no evidence on record to prove that the Prosecutrix had any
enmity with the Appellant which could have motivated her to falsely
implicate him in the alleged offence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 7 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
The testimony of the Prosecutrix is also corroborated by her statement
which is Ex. PW1/A, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered and is
also corroborated by her MLC which is Ex. PW3/B which shows her hymen
was torn. In the absence of any cogent reason to disbelieve her version, this
Court finds no sufficient reasons to discard the testimony of the Prosecutrix.
10.2 The testimony of PW-2 that she has pressurised the Prosecutrix to
lodge the complaint against the accused, does not make the case of the
Prosecution doubtful as it is pertinent to note that as PW-2 was living with
the Appellant as his wife, and therefore, it is quite probable that she may
have in her testimony tried to save the Appellant. Moreover, it also does not
impact the credibility of the testimony of the prosecutrix which is found to
be reliable and trustworthy.
11. It is a well-settled law that the Appellant can be convicted on the sole
testimony of the Prosecutrix, provided that such testimony is
unimpeachable, consistent, and without any ambiguity. In this respect, it is
relevant to mention some of the judgements which are as under:
In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Manga Singh, (2019) 16 SCC 759,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“10. The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based
solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no
corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons
which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her
statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not
a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under the given
facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small
discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of
the prosecutrix.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 8 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
11. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court
that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape
case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic
infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it
unworthy of credence. As a general rule, there is no reason to
insist on corroboration except from medical evidence. However,
having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence
may not be available. In such cases, solitary testimony of the
prosecutrix would be sufficient to base the conviction, if it inspires
the confidence of the court.”
Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar Sahu Vs. State
of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1610 held that:
“5.5.2. This Court observed that if the evidence of the victim
does not suffer from any basic infirmities and the factor of
probability does not render it unworthy evidence, the conviction
could base solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix. It was further
observed that as a general rule there is no reason to insist on the
corroboration accept in certain cases, it was stated.
5.5.3. The medical evidence may not be available in which
circumstance, solitary testimony of the prosecutrix could be
sufficient to base the conviction.
“The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence. The conviction can be based
solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no
corroboration be required unless there are compelling reasons
which necessitate the courts to insist for corroboration of her
statement. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not
a requirement of law; but a guidance of prudence under the given
facts and circumstances. Minor contractions or small
discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing the evidence of
the prosecutrix.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1231/2016 titled
as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar held that:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 9 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
“31. After thorough analysis of all relevant and attendant
factors, we are of the opinion that none of the grounds, on which
the High Court has cleared the respondent, has any merit. By now
it is well settled that the testimony of a victim in cases of sexual
offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which
necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the courts
should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a
sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her
testimony has to inspire confidence. Seeking corroboration to a
statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases,
would literally amount to adding insult to injury. The deposition of
the prosecutrix has, thus, to be taken as a whole. Needless to
reiterate that the victim of rape is not an accomplice and her
evidence can be acted upon without corroboration. She stands at a
higher pedestal than an injured witness does. If the court finds it
difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from
some evidence which lends assurance to her version. To insist on
corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, is to equate one
who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime
and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury
to tell a woman that her claim of rape will not be believed unless it
is corroborated in material particulars, as in the case of an
accomplice to a crime. Why should the evidence of the girl or the
woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed
with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt,
disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has
no substance.”
12. It was further contended on behalf of the Appellant that the MLC does
not support the prosecution case as no external injuries were found on the
person of the Prosecutrix. This contention has no merits for the reason that the
presence of injuries is not a sine qua non for determining whether the offence
of rape has been committed.
It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalliram & Anr.
v. State of M.P., (2008) 10 SCC 69 that:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 10 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
“11. It is true that injury is not a sine qua non for deciding
whether rape has been committed. But it has to be decided on the
factual matrix of each case. As was observed by this Court
in Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa [(1977) 3 SCC 41: 1977 SCC
(Cri) 447] where allegation is of rape by many persons and
several times but no injury is noticed that certainly is an important
factor and if the prosecutrix’s version is credible, then no
corroboration is necessary. But if the prosecutrix’s version is not
credible then there would be need for corroboration.”
13. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court
finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is clear, reliable and trustworthy,
which in terms of the settled legal position, is sufficient to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the Prosecutrix was sexually assaulted by the Appellant.
Accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant by the learned Trial Court does
not warrant any interference by this Court and it is upheld.
14. The Appellant has, however, prayed for modification of the sentence
seeking reduction to the period already undergone. In support of his plea, the
Appellant submitted that he has a wife and three minor daughters aged about
seven, nine and twelve years, respectively and that he is a poor person and he
is the sole earning member of his family. This Court has considered these
contentions and perused the relevant material.
14.1. As per the Nominal Roll, the Appellant has already undergone sentence
for approximately four years, seven months and ten days (excluding the
remission earned by him). It is also noted that here has been no allegation of
misuse of liberty during the pendency of the appeal and the Appellant’s jail
conduct during his incarceration has been reported to be satisfactory. This
Court is also conscious of the fact that the present case relates to an incident
which is stated to have occurred about 21 years ago, while the impugned
judgment itself was delivered nearly 19 years ago.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 11 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10
15. In view of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, the sentence of the
Appellant is modified to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years along
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. This reduction of
sentence is on account of the mitigating circumstances noticed above and it
does not, in any manner, impact the seriousness of the offence for which the
Appellant was convicted.
16. The Appellant is directed to surrender within a period of three days
before the concerned Jail Superintendent and serve his remaining sentence as
ordered. His bail bond will thereupon stands cancelled.
17. The concerned Jail Superintendent is directed to file a compliance
report with regard to the surrender of the Appellant before the concerned Trial
Court. In case the Appellant fails to surrender, then the concerned Trial Court
shall take appropriate steps, in accordance with law, to execute the sentence as
ordered.
18. In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of. All pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
19. A Copy of this judgment be communicated forthwith to the concerned
Trial Court as well as to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary
information and compliance.
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2025
MR/TP
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VAISHALI CRL.A. 40/2007 Page 12 of 12
CHAUHAN
Signing Date:25.08.2025
15:21:10