Delhi District Court
State vs Praveen Kumar on 12 August, 2025
State Vs. Praveen Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Praveen Kumar
FIR No. 374/2011
PS. Burari
U/s 377/511 IPC
Cr. Case No. 289876/2016
JUDGMENT
12.08.2025
1) CNR Number of the case : DLCT02-000870-2013.
2) The name of the complainant : Pragyan Sharma
3) The name & parentage of accused : Praveen Kumar s/o Late Sh. Gauri Shankar
4) Offence complained of : u/s 377/511 IPC
5) The plea of accused : Not guilty
6) Final order : CONVICTION Date of Institution : 07.06.2013 Date of reservation : 16.07.2025 Date of Judgment : 12.08.2025 BRIEF FACTS:
1) Vide this judgment, I shall decide the fate of the above-
mentioned FIR. At the foremost, the court finds it relevant to mention that given the facts of the case, to protect the identity of the victim, he shall be referred to as 'P' in this judgment.
2) The brief case of the prosecution is that on date and time unknown at Ganesh Builder, Chandan Vihar Burari Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari, the accused attempted to voluntarily commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the boy namely 'P' and thereby committed Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 1 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:56:24 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar an offence u/s 377 IPC r/w section 511 IPC.
3) After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court, upon which cognizance was taken and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), arguments on the point of charge were heard and the formal charge was framed u/s 377/511 IPC against the accused Praveen on 25.10.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded further for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
4) Before proceeding with the prosecution evidence, it is relevant to mention here that during the course of trial, the accused had admitted the recording of statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-7/B), without admitting the contents of the said documents. Thus, the said witness was not summoned.
5) Accordingly, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the remaining 09 witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 HC Bijender, PW-2 Dr. Prashant Kumar, PW-3 Priti Prabhakar, PW-4 Ct. Puran mal, PW-5 'A' i.e. the father of the victim, PW-6 Dr. Akash Jhanjhee, PW-7 'P' i.e. the victim, PW-8 ASI Brij Lal Singh and PW-9 Insp. Dharmender Kumar. Now, the testimonies of all these witnesses shall be discussed one by one.
Digitally signed by PAYAL FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 2 of 27 PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:56:34 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar
6) PW-1 HC Bijender was a formal witness being the duty officer. He deposed that on 11.12.2011, he was posted as HC in PS Burari and was working as duty officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 am and that on that day at about 9.15 pm, SI Dharmender handed over to him one Rukka (Darpesh) on the basis of which he got FIR bearing no. 374/2011 u/s 377/511 IPC registered through the computer installed in the PS and one printout which was obtained and handed over the SI Dharmender and another printout was detained to be tagged in the FIR registered maintained as per rules.
The witness certified that nothing abnormal took place during the period so as to affect the accuracy and correctness of the information fed in the computer. The copy of FIR was Ex.PW-1/A and the certificate in support of the same was Ex.PW-1/B; the endorsement on Rukka is Ex.PW1/C.
7) PW-2 Dr. Prashant Kumar was again a formal witness who conducted the MLC of the victim. The said witness deposed that on 12.12.2011, he was posted at AAAG Hospital when at approx 3.00 pm, victim 'P' was brought to casualty by his father Sh. 'A' for medical examination. The witness deposed that he thereafter, medically examined the patient and referred him to SR Paediatrician for detailed examination and opinion and prepared the MLC bearing no. 2559/2011 on 12.12.2011, Ex.PW2/A.
8) PW-3 Dr. Priti Prabhakar was again a formal witness who conducted the medical examination of the accused. She Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 3 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:56:42 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar deposed that on 12.12.2011, she was posted at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi as medical officer and on the said day, one person namely Praveen Kumar aged about 48 years came at the hospital as brought by Ct. Brij Lal who was accused of the act of pedophile to a 7years old as told by Ct. Brij Lal. The witnessed deposed that the said person was referred to forensic expert for potency test by him and that she also medically examined the accused and found that there were no fresh external injuries. The medical report to this effect is Ex.PW-3/A.
9) PW-4 Ct. Puran Mal deposed that on 12.12.2011, he was posted as Ct. at PS Burari, when he joined the present investigation. He deposed that he along with the IO went to PS Civil Lines where IO took the custody of accused who was lodged in the lockup of PS Civil Lines as there was no lockup in PS Burari. The witness further deposed that thereafter they along with the accused went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital to get the potency test of the accused whereafter, the accused was referred to Subzi Mandi mortuary for the potency test. PW-4 further deposed that he along with the accused went to the Subzi Mandi Hospital for potency test and handed over the accused to the Doctor whereafter, the Doctor handed over to him MLC bearing No. 556/11 and after collecting the same, they went back to the AAAG Hospital. PW-4 thereafter, stated that the IO got preserved the blood sample of the accused which was sealed by the concerned Doctor at Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 4 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:56:50 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar AAAG Hospital and seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A. The witness lastly stated that thereafter, the accused was produced before the concerned court and sent to JC whereafter, IO recorded his statement. On being put a leading question by the ld. APP for the State, the witness admitted that indeed the MLC no. was 2556/11 and not 556/11.
10) PW-5 'A' i.e. the father of the victim deposed that he was a graduate and businessmen by profession and that the victim namely 'P' is his son. PW-5 deposed that on 09.12.2011, his son was studying at school Seth Bani Prasad Jaipuria in class II and used to go to the said school by a private van bearing registration No. DL 1K 0212 which was driven by the accused namely Praveen Kumar.
The witness further deposed that the said van driven by the accused used to pick his son for school at about 6.15am from his house which was located at Sant Nagar Burari and his son used to be the first one to be picked up for the school. PW-5 further stated that on 09.12.2011, in night, his son came to him and told him that the accused driver is not a good person whereafter, upon further inquiry from his son as to what has gone wrong with the driver, his son stated that in morning, when the accused driver picks him in his above-said private van, after driving for a short distance, he used to stop the said private van near Ganesh Builder and park it near the said Ganesh builder. Thereafter, the accused used to get down from the said van Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 5 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:56:57 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar and come on the back seat near him and after coming on the back seat, his son stated that the accused used to put his hands on his cheeks. PW-5 further deposed that his son also told him that the accused driver used to take off his wearing pants and also used to take off the wearing pant of his son and used to ask his son to take his private parts in his mouth 'Apne su su mere muh mai deker chusne ko kehta hai.' The witness further stated that his son also told him that the driver 'mujhe pakad kar dabata hai' and that when his son denied for the same, the accused threatened him of beating. PW-5 further deposed that his son also told him that 'apne su su mere tatti karne wali jagah laga deta hai'. Thereafter, the witness stated that his son told him that the accused driver after making a lot of trouble and delay, took him to the school and that this act was repeatedly done for a period of one month with his son by the accused as told to him by his son. PW-5 then deposed that his son also told him that he was threatened by the accused of dire consequences if he informed about the said incident to anyone and due to this 'mera beta dara sehma rehta tha.'. Then, PW-5 deposed that he had also noticed that the accused used to come alongwith his said van at about 6.00 am or 6.05 am when the time fixed for taking of his son for school was 6.15 am and this had created a doubt in their mind also. Thereafter, PW-5 deposed that he disclosed the whole incident to his wife and after discussion about the same, they mutually FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 6 of 27 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:57:05 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar decided to lodge a complaint against the accused driver on 11.12.2011 and on the said date, he alongwith his son, his cousin namely Deepak Kumar went to PS Burari where his son narrated the whole incident to the police officials which was reduced into writing in the form of a complaint Ex. PW5/A and on the basis of which, the FIR was lodged against the accused. Thereafter, PW-5 deposed that they returned back to the home and on 12.12.2011 at about 3.00 pm, he alongwith the police officials and his son went to AAA hospital to get his son medically examined. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court and the photographs of the van i.e. Maruti Omni.
11) PW-6 Dr Akash Jhanjhee was again a formal witness who gave the forensic opinion upon the potency test of the accused. The witness deposed that he was posted at AAAG Hospital, mortuary, when patient Praveen Kumar was referred from casualty of AAAG Hospital for forensic opinion for potency test. The report to this effect is Ex.PW-6/A. The said witness further deposed that he had mentioned in his opinion that there was nothing to suggest that the person who was examined was incapable of performing sexual intercourse and that the said opinion was given on 12.12.2011. The witness further deposed that he also mentioned in his report that there were no external injuries on the private part of the said patient.
12) PW-7 'P' i.e. the victim deposed that at the time of the incident, he was studying in Saint Beni Prasad School Digitally signed by Page No. 7 of 27 PAYAL FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:57:15 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar but he did not know its address and was studying either in first or second address. PW-7 deposed that he used to go to school by Van which used to be brought by Praveen Uncle but he did not remember the registration no. of the said van. The witness further deposed that accused Driver Praveen Kumar use to come in front of his house to pick him up in the morning time, however, he did not remember the exact time and that he used to be alone in the Van when the accused used to come for picking him up. The witness further stated that he did not know as to from where the other children used to be picked up in the Van. PW-7 deposed that the accused driver used to stop the Van after picking him from his house and after being driven for about 10 minutes, the van used to go at the end of the gali, then the driver used to turn left or right and the same routine continued for about one and a half weeks. Then, PW-7 deposed that the accused used to come at the back seat of the Van, he used to take out his "male reproductive organ" and he used to ask him to suck it. The witness also deposed that the accused used to also tell him that his two brothers had also done the same in the past and that he used to given money to them. The witness further deposed that he refused to do so but that despite that, the accused used to repeatedly ask him to suck but he never did that. The witness also stated that the accused used to tell him not to tell this to anyone, including his parents. Thereafter, PW-7 stated that one day, date unknown, while he was Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 8 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:57:23 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar talking to his mother about the daily routine, he also mentioned the incidents with the accused whereafter, his mother later told the same to his father and he went to the police station and made a complaint Ex. PW 5/A and that since he did not know how to sign, that is why, he had written his whole name. The witness also stated that his statement was also recorded before a judicial officer, Ex. PW7/B. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court and the photographs of the van i.e. Maruti Omni. After permission from the court, Ld. APP put some leading questions to the witness wherein the witness stated that he did not remember whether the accused had ever touched his bottom or physically touched him or made him sit on his lap.
13) PW-8 ASI Brij Lal Singh deposed that on 11.12.2011, he was posted as Ct. at PS Burari and was on emergency duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am with SI Dharmender and at about 9.15 pm, Sh. 'A' came to the PS along with his son and the IO recorded his statement upon which the present FIR was registered. The witness then stated that he along with the IO, the complainant and his son went to the house of the accused Praveen at house no.
16/30, Bengali Colony, whereafter, the accused came out of the house and was identified by the victim as the driver of the Van. Thereafter, PW-8 deposed that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW-8/A, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-8/B, IO interrogated Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 9 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:57:30 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-8/C. Then PW-8 stated that the accused took them to the spot of the incident and pointed out towards the spot near Ganesh Builder vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-8/D, whereafter, the accused was brought to the PS and taken for his medical examination and thereafter, lodged in the lockup of PS Civil lines. The witness further stated that thereafter, they went to the house of the accused at Bengali Colony and brought the van bearing no. DL1K0212, which was seized vide seizure memo PW-8/E and the said van was deposited in the malkhana whereafter, IO recorded his statement. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court and the photographs of the van. On being put leading questions by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness admitted that when they went to the house of the accused, they met his wife Ritu and upon pointing out by her, the van was taken.
14) PW-9 Insp. Dharmender deposed that on 11.12.2011, he was posted as SI at PS Burari and was present at PS, when the complainant 'A' alongwith his son 'P' (victim) came at PS and told that the van driver of the school van of his son attempted to do Galat kaam (wrong deed) with him. The witness deposed that upon asking as to what he meant by 'galat kaam', the complainant told him that accused used to undress the pants of victim 'P' and made him sit over his private part in his lap in the van and accused was doing the aforesaid conduct with the victim FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 10 of 27 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:57:39 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar for one month as told to the complainant by his son on 09.12.2011 in night time. Then, PW-9 stated that he recorded the statement of victim 'P' Ex. PW-5/A whereafter, he prepared tehrir and got registered the FIR in present case through DO. PW-9 stated that after registration of FIR, DO handed over to him the copy of FIR and original tehrir and that he alongwith complainant and the victim went to the spot, i.e. near the office of Ganesh Builder situated near the house of complainant in the same street. Thereafter, PW-9 deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Ex. PW-9/A whereafter, he joined Ct. Brijlal in investigation and went alongwith Ct. Brijlal to the house of the accused as per the address given by the complainant i.e. 16/30, A 1 Block, Sant Nagar, Burari. Then, PW-9 deposed that they knocked the door of accused Praveen and accused came out of his house and in the meantime, victim and his father also came there and the victim identified accused. After identification, PW-9 deposed that he discharged the victim and his father who left from there and after interrogation of accused, he formally arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-8/B respectively; he prepared pointing out memo of spot at the instance of accused vide memo Ex. PW-8/D; he seized the school van in which the aforesaid offence was committed by accused vide memo Ex.PW-8/E whereafter, he got conducted the medical examination of accused at AAA Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 11 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:57:47 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Hospital. PW-9 deposed that he also got conducted the medical examination of the victim child 'P' whereafter, accused was put behind bars and the school van was deposited in Malkahana. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Puran and accused Praveen Kumar again went to hospital where he got conducted the potency test of the accused conducted. Then, PW-9 deposed that he collected the blood sample of accused from AAA Hospital and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW-4/A; the blood samples were deposited in Malkhana and since the victim and his father had already washed the clothes of victim, therefore, he could not send those blood samples alongwith clothes to FSL for examination. Thereafter, PW-9 deposed that he produced accused before the Court in Tis Hazari and accused was remanded to JC; the school van was released to its owner on superdari by order of Court after he got clicked the photographs of school van; he got recorded the statement of victim 'P' u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before Ld. MM at Tis Hazari Courts. Lastly, PW-9 deposed that he recorded the statements of all witnesses during interrogation; he obtained the MLCs and medical documents from concerned hospital and placed the same on record; he also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Ex. PW-8/C and after completion of all the formalities, he prepared the chargesheet and submitted the same in Court. The said witness correctly identified the accused and the photographs of the school van.
Digitally signed by PAYAL FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 12 of 27 PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:57:56 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar
15) All the witness were duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein some material facts have come on record which shall be duly dealt with in the reasoning part of the judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:
16) After recording the testimony of all the witnesses, the PE was closed and thereafter, the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.02.2024. In the said statement, the accused denied all the allegations levelled against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further stated that in the month of November, 2011, since he had refused to ferry the children of the brother of the complainant, he was falsely implicated in the present matter. The accused further stated that he did not want to lead any DE and accordingly, the matter came up for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
17) Arguments on behalf of the accused were advanced by ld. counsel Sh. Amardeep Singh and by Sh. Rohit Lohat, Ld. APP on behalf of the State.
18) It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It was argued that a bare perusal of the testimonies of PW-5 Sh. 'A' and PW-7 Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 13 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:58:06 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Victim 'P' on one hand and the tehrir, Ex.PW-5/A on the other hand would show that the tehrir was gotten prepared at the instance of PW-5 and not of PW-7. It was also argued that there were major inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-7 as recorded in court and the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as recorded immediately after the registration of the FIR qua the acts which allegedly took place with him owing to which the possibility of tutoring cannot be ignored. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Bhagirath v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 1 SCC 20 to augment the argument that very different versions of the story were brought forth in the testimony before the court and 164 Cr.P.C. statement which brings into doubt the prosecution story and made the testimony of the victim unreliable. It was further argued that there were various contradictions brought forth in the cross-examination of PW-7 and PW-5 qua the alleged place of occurrence i.e. Ganesh Builders as their versions do not match with the site plan and nor does the said place match the description of the place as given by the witnesses in their testimony in terms of time taken to reach there (who stated that after 10 minutes, the van was stopped), its visibility from the house of the victim (as stated by PW-5 in his testimony), etc. It was then argued that the present case was nothing but a ruse to falsely trap the accused as he refused to ferry the children of the cousin of PW-5. It was also argued that the investigating agency had failed to examine any other Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 14 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:58:18 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar children or their parents who used to travel in the van alongwith the victim in order to prove that the victim was alone with the accused at any point of time to afford an opportunity to the accused for the commission of any offence. Accordingly, it was argued that a reasonable doubt had been raised in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of which was necessarily to go to the accused. Reliance was placed on Harbeer Singh v. Sheeshpal & Ors. SCC Online (2016) 16 SCC 418.
19) The ld. counsel for the accused further argued that the testimony of a child witness has to be evaluated carefully as he is prey to tutoring and that when all the evidences are taken into account in the present case, the testimony of the child witness cannot be taken to be reliable. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of State of UP v. Ashok Dixit & Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 70;
Dharmender v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC Online Del 3672. The accused also relied upon the judgments of State v. Israfeel 2017 SCC Online Del 9613; Nirmal Premkumar & Anr. v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police 2024 SCC Online SC 260; Veerpal v. State 2024 SCC Online Del 2686 in support of his arguments that if the statement of the victim/prosecutrix is changing or unreliable, without cogent corroboration, the same cannot be relied upon. The accused then relied upon the judgments of Harilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC Online SC 1124 and Vincent Paul v. Inspector of Digitally signed by PAYAL FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 15 of 27 PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:58:33 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Police, Hasthampatty Police Station, Salem SCC Online 2006 (2) MWN (Cr.) 78 in support of his argument that in case of unexplained delay in registration of FIR, the courts have to be on guard as the possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story cannot be ignored and that in the case at hand, there was not even any specific date mentioned in the FIR of the alleged offence (although it was clear from the facts that there was some time gap between the date of reporting and the date of alleged offence), let alone any explanation brought forth as to the reasons for the delay in registration of the same.
20) Per contra, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there were ocular and documentary evidences on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. It was argued that all the prosecution witnesses had corroborated the testimony of each other and no material contradictions were brought on record by the accused. It was argued that the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of the victim and the testimony of PW-7/victim as given in court were corroborative to each other to prove the allegations u/s 377/511 IPC against the accused given the fact that the victim was a 7-8 years old child at the time of the offence.
Accordingly, it was argued that the state had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused be convicted of the offence u/s 377/511 IPC.
21) I have heard the arguments from both the sides and have carefully perused the record.
Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 16 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:58:41 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
22) It is settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution case appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt, necessarily has to go to the accused.
23) In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused Praveen attempted to commit carnal intercourse against the order of the nature with the victim 'P' while he was ferrying the victim to school in his van.
Now, although, no specific date or time for the commission of the offence has been mentioned but as per the case of the prosecution, the victim narrated the said incident to his father on 09.12.2011 whereafter, the present FIR was gotten registered on 11.12.2011 on the basis of the statement of the victim 'P' and as per the statement of the witness, the accused allegedly continued to do the said acts for about 1 month sometime prior to that.
24) At this juncture, the court also finds it relevant to note that although The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 i.e. POCSO deals with offences to protect the children from sexual offences but the said Act came into force on 19.06.2012 and since the present offence pertains to atleast December 2011, therefore, the Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 17 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:58:49 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar same was being tried before this Court. Accordingly, the present judgment.
25) Now, before proceeding further, it is necessary to note the bare provisions of the sections which shall govern the present decision.
"377. Unnatural offences.--Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section."
"511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.--Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."
26) At this juncture, the court also finds it relevant to note the definition of the term "carnal intercourse" as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kamal v. State 2021: DHC: 4267-DB decided on 20.12.2021. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Court stated that, "...attempting to define the phrase 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' with exactitude is neither possible, and perhaps not even desirable. Accordingly, though we hesitate to give the phrase 'carnal intercourse Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 18 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:58:58 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar against the order of nature' any exhaustive meaning, we hold, that as a matter of law, any physical act answering to all the above ingredients, committed upon a minor is per-se 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature..." while laying down three-situations which will comprise ingredients of 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature' u/s 377 IPC:
i. it must have to do with flesh and sensuality, namely it must be carnal;
ii. ii. there must be intercourse between individuals, without restricting it only to human-to-human intercourse;
iii. it must involve penetration other than penile-
vaginal penetration, since by the very nature, intent and purpose of section 377, it must refer to an unnatural act, such as 'penile-anal penetration', 'digital penetration' or 'object penetration'.
27) Now, the facts of the case shall be discussed in light of the settled law. In the case at hand, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused attempted to have carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the victim 'P' while he was ferrying the victim to and from school for a period of atleast one month at or around October-
December 2011. On the other hand, it is the case of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter as he failed to ferry the children of the cousin of the complainant/PW-5. However, the court is not concerned with the defence of the accused and is concerned about the fact that whether prosecution has been able to prove the allegations against the accused in the first place.
Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 19 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:59:07 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar
28) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon 2 independent witnesses i.e. the complainant and victim (PW-5 & PW-7), 3 expert witnesses i.e. the doctors who conducted the medical examination of the victim and the accused (PW-2, PW-3 & PW-6) and 4 police witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, PW-8 & PW-9).
29) Now, the relevant facts which have come to light from the testimonies of the expert witnesses is that firstly, there was nothing to suggest that accused was incapable of sexual intercourse; secondly, there were no external injuries on the private parts of the accused and thirdly, that there was no evidence of sexual assault from the examination of the victim. However, the said facts are not so material as the allegations against the accused are u/s 377/511 IPC and not Section 377 IPC. Thereafter, PW-1 was only a formal witness being the DO who got the FIR registered and thus, his testimony does not help the merits of the case of the prosecution against the accused.
Similarly, PW-4 joined the investigation for the limited purpose of arresting the accused, getting his medical examination done, etc. and accordingly, his testimony too is only formal in nature. The remaining two police witnesses were the IOs of the case and although their testimony is relevant but they were not eye witnesses to the incident and their testimony can only be used to corroborate the testimonies of PWs 5 and 7 and it is essentially the testimony of these two witnesses which is Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 20 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:59:17 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar material to the case of the prosecution.
30) What is relevant to note before proceeding any further is that what transpires from the record is that the victim was around 7-8 years at the time of the alleged incident, when his complaint was recorded and when his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. took place and around 14 years old at the time of his evidence in court. Accordingly, his testimony has to be seen from that point of view only. In the given circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-7 inspires the confidence of the court. His testimony in court has stood the test of cross-examination and the defence has been unable to shake his testimony or bring any material contradictions in the same. Moreover, the said testimony is duly corroborated by his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and both the statements clearly show that in some way or the other, the accused attempted to have 'carnal intercourse against the order of the nature' with him. Now, the version as disclosed in the 164 Cr.P.C statement contains slightly different description that the one contained in the testimony in court and the complaint, Ex.PW-5/A to the extent that in the 164 Cr.P.C statement, the victim stated that, "Mai Sen Benny Prasad Jaipuriya Preparatory School, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, mein II Class mei padhta hun.
Mai Maruti van se school aate jatey rehte hain. Van vale uncle jiska naam Praveen Kumar hai, Van subha sunsan jagah par rok dete hain aur piche aakar mujhe god mei Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 21 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:59:26 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar baitha lete hai aur mujhe pyaar karte hain. Vo mujhe Paise ka lalach dete hain aur mere susu ki jagah ko choosne ki koshish karta hai parantu maine use aisa karne nhi diya. Aisa kart eke bad ve phr driver ki seat par aa jate hain aur teen aur bacho ko lekar school aa jata hain. Aisi harkat van driver Praveen Kumar Sham ko ghar jate waqt bhi karte hain". On the other hand, in his complaint and the testimony in court, the victim stated that, "... van ki pichli seat par aa jata tha tatha mere galo ko sehlane lagta tha tatha mujhe apne susu ko chusne ke lie kehta tha tatha mere mana karne par mujhe god mei bitha kar zor se dabata tha tatha apne susu ko mere piche laga kar hilata tha....". At the cost of repetition, the court finds it pertinent to note here is that the victim is a child and would not know the difference between someone asking him to do something or doing something to him. Moreover, irrespective whether a person asks someone else to have sex with them or has sex with someone else, for the sake of nomenclature, both the said acts would constitute as amounting to sexual intercourse between both the said two persons involved. Similarly, the difference in both the said statements as given by the victim only leads the court to the conclusion that an attempt was made by the accused to have sexual intercourse against the order of nature with victim as the victim clearly disclosed the said facts in one way or the other and also identified the accused as well as his Maruti Van in court. What also Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 22 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:59:34 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar becomes immaterial is the argument of the accused that the version as contained in the complaint is more similar to the testimony of PW-5 and less similar to that of PW-7 because given the nature of allegations and the age of the victim, it is not only explainable but reasonable and infact expected that the child would not be able to give so many details to the police but would be comfortable with his parents to tell them the entire story.
31) As far as the inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-7 is concerned; firstly, it was argued by the accused that from the testimony of the victim, it was clear that the van used to pick him up in a way that the passenger side was facing the house of the victim whereafter, the van would move forward but as per the version of the prosecution, the incident happened at Ganesh Builders, which is situated in the backwards direction from the house of the victim and that Ganesh Builder was visible from the house of the victim thus, the facts are alleged by the prosecution are false. Secondly, it was also argued that material contradictions had come in the testimony of the victim wherein he admitted in his cross-examination that he used to be picked up from his house alongwith 2-3 other children and thus, the non-joinder of the said other children was fatal to the case of the prosecution as their testimony would prove that the accused had no opportunity to commit the said offence. Lastly, it was argued that the version of the victim before the court and in his 164 Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 23 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:59:45 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar Cr.P.C. statement were completely different and thus, his testimony cannot be said to be reliable enough to convict the accused. The court is of the considered opinion that given the age of the victim and the nature of allegations, the said inconsistencies can only be considered to be minor and would not affect the reliability of his evidence. Moreover, the victim while describing the direction of movement of the Van also stated that the van would move around in different directions for some time whereafter, it would stop and thus, the said stop could be in any direction from the house of the victim and not necessarily in the forward direction. Further, when the victim stated that other children used to accompany him, he also stated that the said children had left the van at or before the time of the incident in which scenario, the court has no hasitation in holding that it is possible that at the time of the offence, the child was alone in the van. The other argument qua contradiction in the testimony in court and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement has already been discussed above. Thus, the court had no hesitation in relying upon the testimony of the victim and to hold that the same clearly establishes the case against the accused especially when the same finds due corroboration in the testimony of PW-5 and the remaining police witnesses.
32) PW-5 in his testimony has clearly narrated the entire facts as stated to him by the victim i.e. his son PW-7 and although the same amounts to hearsay evidence but since Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 24 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 17:59:54 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar the same corroborates the version as deposed by PW-7 himself, its evidentiary value shifts from hearsay to corroboration and aids the case of the prosecution in proving the allegations against the accused. Moreover, the independent facts as disclosed by the said witness from his own memory like the fact that although the time for pick- up would be 6.15 am but the accused would come at 6- 6.05 am only, the children of his brother had left the van sometime before the present incident further aid the prosecution story.
33) In the given circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden to prove the allegations against the accused and any inconsistencies that have arisen in the testimonies of witness are only owing to lapses in memory as the witnesses cannot be expected to reiterate the exact same facts each and every time, doing so would infact make the testimony less believable. Thus, now the onus shifts upon the accused to disprove the said allegations.
34) Now, the defense of the accused is that he refused to ferry the children of the brother of PW-5 to school and to take revenge for the same, PW-5 in connivance with his brother filed the present case against the accused by using his son and tutoring him to concoct the present story. The accused also argued that since no such incident ever happened, accordingly, the prosecution had failed to bring as witnesses any other children or parents of the children Digitally signed by FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 25 of 27 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 18:00:05 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar which it was bound to examine to prove that the accused had opportunity to commit the present offence. The court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-7 was stellar enough to not require any corroboration and accordingly, the non-examination of any other children that may have used the said van becomes immaterial. Furthermore, since it has already been noted above that the burden of the prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused stands duly discharged, it was not upon the prosecution to show that the victim was unaccompanied by other children on his journey to the school; if the accused wanted to show that he was never alone with the victim in the van to have any opportunity to commit the alleged offence, he should have brought the said children whom he allegedly used to pick up with the victim as defence witnesses. The accused had the opportunity to even cite as witnesses the brother of PW-5 and the said brother's children to prove his defence and had they failed to appear as witnesses when summoned to do so, the court could have drawn an adverse inference but the same was not done. When the prosecution has discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt, the non-examination of witnesses which were argued as necessary to be examined by the accused cannot be said to negatively affect the case of the prosecution. The accused had all the opportunity to bring witnesses to prove his defence but no such witnesses have been brought and thus, there is no ounce of evidence Digitally FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 26 of 27 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 18:00:14 +0530 State Vs. Praveen Kumar to show that to take revenge for refusing to ferry the children of the brother of PW-5, the present case has been falsely filed against the accused. Moreover, without such evidence, the fact that a father would tutor his 7-10 year old son to falsely say that someone tried to sexually assault him for the reason to exact revenge on such person who refused to ferry his brother's children to school seems abhorrent and beyond natural human comprehension.
35) Needless to say that the judgments as relied upon by the accused have been given due consideration and they have been found distinguished in facts and the reasoning relied upon in the same have been relied upon to arrive at the decision in the present case.
36) In view of the discussion hereinabove, the court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused attempted to have carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the victim 'P'. Thus, the accused Praveen is convicted of charges u/s 377/511 IPC.
37) Dasti copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed by (Announced in open Court PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL on 12th August 2025 ) SINGAL Date:
2025.08.12 18:00:22 (The judgment contains 27 pages +0530 and all the pages bear my signatures) (Payal Singal) JMFC-09/Central District Delhi/12.08.2025 FIR No. 374/2011, PS Burari Page No. 27 of 27