Ravi Kumar vs State Of Delhi on 18 February, 2026

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ravi Kumar vs State Of Delhi on 18 February, 2026

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 249/2025
RAVI KUMAR .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Kedar Yadav, Ms.Nisha Singh,
Ms. Sanya Verma, Advs.
versus
STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit
Luthra, Advs.
Ms. Gayatri Nandwani and Ms.
Mudita Sharda, Advs. for Victim
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER

% 18.02.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.(BAIL) 2340/2025 (for suspension of sentence and release on bail)

2. The instant appeal challenges the impugned judgment dated 25th October, 2024 and the order on sentence dated 16th December, 2024 passed by the ld. ASJ-06 (POCSO), South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.46/2019 arising out of FIR No.702/2018 registered at PS Jaitpur.

3. The background of the case giving rise to FIR No.702/2018 is that on 10th November, 2018, the Complainant/prosecutrix had filed a handwritten complaint before the concerned police station, where she had stated that the CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 1 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00 accused/Appellant- Ravi Kumar had made physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage. The Complainant had further stated that she was 17 years old at the time of filing the complaint and the accused person had, over a course of 4 years, established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage and the last physical relation was established in April, 2018.

4. It is further the case of the Complainant/prosecutrix that in August, 2018, she came to know that she was 5 months pregnant and when she informed the accused/Appellant about the same, he refused to marry her and asked her to abort the child. However, since the doctors refused to abort the child due to the stage of the pregnancy, the Complainant/prosecutrix gave birth to a girl child on 4th November, 2018 and thereafter, she filed the complaint on 10th November, 2018.

5. Upon the said complaint being filed, FIR No.702/2018 was registered at PS Jaitpur and further investigation was conducted. Charges were framed in the said case vide order on charge dated 2nd March, 2019 u/s 363, 366, 376, IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

6. Thereafter, the ld. Trial Court proceeded with conducting trial in Sessions Case No.46/2019 and the impugned judgment dated 25th October, 2024 was passed, followed by the order on sentence dated 16th December, 2024.

7. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted under Section 366 & 376, IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Appellant has thus been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of his life.

8. Today, the matter has been listed before the Court for considering the application filed by the Appellant seeking suspension of his sentence during CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 2 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

9. Ld. Counsels for the Appellant, as also ld. APP for State have taken the Court through the various materials on record, including the testimony of P.W.-1- the Complainant/prosecutrix. The said testimony is extremely relevant in this case and is set out below:

"1 have studied upto 5th class. My mausi resides at Madanpur Khadar, JJ Colony. I used to visit my mausi oftenly. Accused Ravi Kumar who used to reside near my mausi's house met me there and he fell in love with me. He assured me that he will marry me. He used to take me his house and used to have sexual intercourse with me despite my resistance. He used to say that he loves me a lot and that he will marry me even if my family does not accept him. He put sindoor on my forehead and thereafter, had sex with me, like husband and wife do, number of times. I was having affair with him for the last four years. He started having sexual intercourse with me since year 2016. He used to take me out for roaming and used to meet me almost daily. After I became pregnant and was 5 ½ months pregnant he asked me to get the child aborted. I agreed and went to the doctor but looking at the stage of pregnancy and my overall condition the doctor refused and said that it was risky. Doctor also said to bring Rs. 50,000/- in case I really want to go for abortion. I told the same to accused but he refused to give Rs. 50,000/- and instead said that he will keep me and the child. He used to introduce me to everybody as his wife and used to take me outside the house after making me dressed up to look as a married woman. I asked him to take me to his house and he kept on delaying the same on one pretext or the other. He had also assured me that he had taken a room at Lakadpur where he would keep me. When I was 7 ½ months pregnant I asked him to marry me CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 3 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00 but he kept on making excuses and told me that there is no way he would leave me and said that my pregnancy is enough proof of our relationship. However, thereafter, he fled away to his native place at Bihar leaving me all alone. I went to his house and disclosed about everything to his mother and family members. His parents and sisters started abusing me that it is a "najayaz aulad" and they offered me Rs. 20,000/- to get the pregnancy aborted. At that time they also introduced the wife of accused Ravi to me and I came to know that he had married. I came back to my house and told everything to my family members. The family members of the accused used to come to my house and abused and threatened me. I even went to police station to lodge the complaint. Thereafter, I delivered a baby girl on 04.11.2018. The family of the accused has been threatening me to take Rs. 1 lac or Rs. 2 lacs and leave their child i.e. accused or else it will not be good for me. I gave my written complaint to the police on 11.11.2018 and the same is Ex.PW1/A which bears my signatures at point A. I was taken for my medical examination, however, I refused for my medical examination as I had just delivered the child one week back. After the delivery, my blood sample and that of child were got collected by the police. I had also shown the place of incident to the police. I was brought to Saket Court where my statement was recorded by a Judge Madam.

Xxx I originally belong to Rajasthan. I was born in Delhi only. I never stayed at my mausi's house but was on visiting terms as I am also residing in Delhi near my mausi's house. I do not remember the name of the school where I studied but it was in D Block near a bazaar. The school was at the distance of 10 minutes from my house and I used to go to school by foot. I CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 4 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00 have studied upto 5th class. I do not remember the year of my birth. I do not know whether the birth certificate was got prepared from the MCD or not. My birth date is 18th April. I do not remember when I had left the school in/after 5th class. It is correct that I had turned 18 on 18.04.2019. I was not 18 when I met the accused for the first time. It is wrong to suggest that I had turned 18 at the time when accused had made physical relations with me. It is correct that the relationship made by the accused with me were consensual. Vol. he used to say that he loves me a lot and had assured to marry me and he had entrapped me. I still love the accused. I am still willing to reside with the accused as his wife in case he marries me. It is correct that relationships were made with me for the first time only after putting sindoor on my forehead (maang bharney ke baad banaye thai). I had met the wife of the accused when I went to his house. It is correct that the father of the child born on 04.11.2018 is accused Ravi."

10. The main issue raised by ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that the age of the prosecutrix has not been proved by the prosecution. The only evidence which has come on record with respect to the age of the prosecutrix is a school register, which has been produced by a school teacher.

11. In the said school register, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is given as 14th April, 2005, however, the same is based on the affidavit of the father, and not on the basis of any birth certificate or municipal record. The relevant portion of the affidavit of the father of the prosecutrix reads as under: -

"1. That the correct date of birth of my daughter xxx is 14.04.2005 i.e. fourteen day of April Two Thousand Five.

2. That he/she has not studied at any Govt./Recognised school anywhere, he/she has CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 5 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00 studied upto class 1st privately and now he/she is fit for admit in class 2nd.

3. That his/her birth certificate has been lost.

4. That his/her mother's name is xxxxx.

5. That this statement is true and correct."

12. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the age of the prosecutrix has not been proved and in fact, the Aadhar card of the prosecutrix shows that her date of birth is 18th April, 1999.

13. Thus, it is the submission of ld. Counsel for the Appellant that the relationship between the Appellant and the prosecutrix being consensual, since it is not established that she is a minor, the conviction of the Appellant is not tenable. Accordingly, he submits that the sentence of the Appellant deserves to be suspended.

14. Mr. Bahri, ld. APP on the other hand relies upon the cross examination of P.W.-1/the prosecutrix to argue that once a suggestion is given by the defence to the prosecutrix, the answer in respect of the said suggestion would be binding on the defence.

15. He relies upon the above-extracted portion of the cross-examination, where the prosecutrix admits that she turned 18 on 18th April, 2019 and was not 18 years old when she had met the Appellant.

16. Further, Mr. Bahri, ld. APP relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 2023 SC 1736 titled Balu Sulam Khalde & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra to argue how suggestions made by the defence during a cross examination could be incriminating for the defence.

17. Heard. The Court has considered the matter. The overall evidence of the prosecutrix clearly shows that the relationship between her and the CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 6 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

18. Thus, the question in this case is whether it has been sufficiently proved or not from the material on record that the prosecutrix is a minor.

19. In support of the prosecution's case, the exhibits which are on record are the school admission register and the affidavit of the father of the prosecutrix, which states that the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 14th April, 2005. In the said affidavit, it is also stated that the birth certificate of the prosecutrix has been lost.

20. It is noted that the prosecutrix was admitted in Class 1st in 2005, which would mean that she must have been approximately five years old in 2005 as per the affidavit of the father of the prosecutrix. However, there is no other document which has been attached with the said exhibits to further substantiate such averment on the age of the prosecutrix. There is no hospital record, birth certificate issued by the Municipal authorities or any other official documents. The sexual relationship between the prosecutrix and the Appellant took place during the period 2016-18.

21. The settled legal position in this regard has been discussed recently by the Supreme Court in the decision of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr., 2026 INSC 47 where the Supreme Court has held that the presumption of correctness attached to age-related documents under Section 94 of the JJ Act is not absolute, but is a factor for consideration. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:

"14.7 As held in Rishipal Singh, extracted (supra) the determination of the age when done by a Court stands differently to that done by the JJB. There are two possibilities provided for. There is no determination of age by a JJB - like body when it comes to the victim. If CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 7 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00 there is a question about the age, it has to be dealt with by the Court, as per the procedure of Section 94, JJ Act. It is when the Court is undertaking the exercise of determination, that the defense of an accused can challenge the veracity of these documents, since the presumption under this section is rebuttable.

xxxx 14.10 As can be seen from Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (supra) the consideration of the documents enumerated in Section 94, JJ Act is a matter of consideration of evidence since it may involve the examination of witnesses to prove the veracity of the documents. That can only be done by the Trial Court. Contra evidence to challenge the documents, can also be presented only before the Trial Court. In our considered view, therefore, the High Court fell in error in holding that a Court in bail jurisdiction is empowered to entertain a challenge to the documents as Section 94 would not apply at the bail stage."

22. The above decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh (supra) has also been followed by this Court in State v. Sonu@Parminder 2026: DHC:346-DB.

23. There is no doubt that the prosecutrix and the Appellant were in a relationship and a girl child was also born to the prosecutrix out of their physical relationship. The case of the prosecutrix is that the accused had promised to marry her.

24. It is also noted that during the course of trial, the father of the prosecutrix was not traceable and therefore, his evidence could not be recorded, however, the prosecutrix had appeared before the ld. Trial Court and before this Court as well.

CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 8 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00

25. A perusal of the latest nominal roll of the Appellant also reveals that the Appellant has served 3 years and 7 months in custody and his conduct has been satisfactory.

26. In view of the fact that the basis of the age of the prosecutrix is merely the school register and there is no other document to support the same, the Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the Appellant during the pendency of this appeal.

27. In the overall facts of the case, and considering that the instant appeal has been filed in 2025 and might not be finally heard in the near future, the Appellant's sentence is suspended during the pendency of the appeal, subject to following conditions:

(i) The Appellant shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.

10,000/, each with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Link Court;

(ii) The Appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court;

(iii) The Appellant shall provide his current phone number and residential address to the concerned Investigating Officer (IO), PS Jaitpur, and shall regularly update the concerned IO about change in the address and phone number, if any. The Appellant shall keep his phone number operational at all times;

(iv) The Appellant shall report at the concerned police station, i.e. PS Jaitpur, on the 1st of every month. He shall report at 11:00 A.M. and be discharged by 12:00 P.M., after recording his presence and completion of all the necessary formalities;

(v) The Appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and upon CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 9 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

(vi) The Appellant shall not contact the prosecutrix and/or her family in any manner.

28. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.

29. The order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

30. This application is disposed of in said terms.

CRL.A. 249/2025

31. The impugned judgment on sentence dated 16th December, 2024 also shows that the prosecutrix was awarded final compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- . The relevant portion of the judgment on sentence reads as under:

"13). On the basis of overall facts and circumstances, the convict Ravi Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the reminder of natural life of the convict for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, the convict is to undergo SI for six month. Convict Ravi Kumar is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for three year for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of the payment of fine, the convict is to undergo SI for one month.

14). The convict is also directed to pay the expenses of the State to the extent of Rs. 12,576/- within one month. Convict is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-(Two Lacs only) to the victim.

15. Benefit of Section 428 CrPC be also given to the CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 10 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00 convict.

16). As regard final compensation to the victim, Under clause 9 Part II of Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2018, it is provided that in the case of a minor victim, the compensation amount mentioned in the schedule has to be considered 50% higher. The present case is covered under Entry 3 (for rape) & 11 (in case of pregnancy on account of rape) of the schedule. Under entry 3 of the schedule, compensation for rape requiring rehabilitation is Rs. 4 Lacs and the maximum compensation is Rs. 7 Lacs. Under entry 11 of the schedule, the minimum compensation is Rs. 3 Lacs and maximum compensation is Rs. 4 Lacs. Therefore, the minimum compensation under entry 3 & 11 of the schedule works out to be 7 Lacs and maximum compensation works out to be 11 Lacs. In terms of clause 9, after the compensation is assessed at 50% higher, the minimum compensation works out to Rs. 10.5 Lacs and maximum compensation works out to Rs. 16.5 Lacs.

17). The victim was just 17 years of age when she delivered a baby in year 2018. She must be around 23 years of age as of today and her baby must be around six years of age. As the victim has to look after the minor baby, who is also the victim of circumstances and of offence, maximum compensation is to be awarded to the victim.

Therefore, the victim is also awarded final compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Sixteen Lacs Fifty Thousand only) to be paid under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2018 r/w Rule 33(8) POCSO Act 2012. The above compensation to be paid under Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme is in addition to the compensation to be paid by the convict.

However, any interim compensation awarded and received by the victim is to be adjusted in the final CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 11 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

32. As can be seen above, the Appellant has also been directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the prosecutrix.

33. The Appellant shall also deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh as part compensation to the prosecutrix with the Registrar General of this Court by 10th May, 2026.

34. Let the prosecutrix be also present before the Court on the next date of hearing.

35. The IO shall give the contact details of the prosecutrix to the DLSA, South East so that the DLSA can verify her credentials and disburse the compensation in terms of the impugned order.

36. Let the report be given by the ld. Secretary, DLSA South East as to the status of the disbursement of compensation in terms of the impugned judgment on sentence.

37. List on 19th May, 2026.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MADHU JAIN, J.

FEBRUARY 18, 2026/ys/ss CRL.A. 249/2025 Page 12 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/02/2026 at 20:40:00

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders