CRL.A. 10/2019 Page1of17

$~53

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 9

th

April, 2026

Uploaded on: 13

th

April, 2026

+ CRL.A. 10/2019

MOHD. ZAMIL .....Appellant

Through: Mr. S.S Ahluwalia, with Ms. Saniya

Zehra, and Mr. Prince Balyan, Advs.

along with Appellant in person

versus

STATE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with

Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Mohd. Zamil under

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘CrPC’)

challenging the judgment dated 7

th

August, 2018 (hereinafter,‘impugned

judgment’) and order on sentence dated 10

th

August, 2018 passed by the ld.

Additional Sessions Judge (North West)-01, Special Court, POCSO, Rohini

District Court inSessions Case No. 123/2014arising out ofFIR No.

139/2014registered at P.S. Kanjhawala.

3.Videthe impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted for

offences punishable under Section 6 read with Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page2of17

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter,‘POCSO

Act’) and Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter,‘IPC’).

The Appellant has been sentencedvideorder on sentence dated 10

th

August,

2018 in the following terms:

“(i) For the offence u/s 506 (i) IPC, the convict Mohd.

Zamil is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period

of two years along with a fine of Rs. l,000/-(Rs. One

thousand only), in default of payment of fine, to undergo

S.I for one month.

(ii) For offence u/s 6 of POCSO Act, the convict Mohd.

Zamil is sentenced to life imprisonment, along with fine

of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo simple imprisonment for six months.”

4. The allegation against the Appellant was that he had repeatedly

indulged in sexual assault of his own daughter (hereinafter,‘Prosecutrix’),

who was a minor. On 22

nd

February, 2014, the prosecutrix was taken by her

mother to the hospital wherein, she was found to be pregnant. Initially, the

prosecutrix had falsely implicated a friend, however, thereafter she had made

a statement that she was repeatedly subjected to sexual assault by her own

father.

5. Upon the incident being reported, the exhibits were seized from the

victimi.e.,the prosecutrix and the same were sent to Forensic Science

Laboratory (hereinafter,‘FSL’) on 25

th

February, 2014. The FSL Reports

which were prepared, revealed that the DNA of the foetus matched with the

DNA of the father of the prosecutrix. Thus, the Trial Court came to the

conclusion that the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act were

made out.

6. Insofar as the date of birth of the prosecutrix was concerned, in her

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page3of17

school records, the date of birth was recorded as 15

th

October, 1999 whereas

in her Aadhar Card which was prepared during the course of the trial of the

case, the date of birth was recorded as 15

th

October, 1996. The Trial Court

went by the school records and observed that the Aadhar Card was made at

the instance of the mother who was also making an attempt to not completely

disclose the true facts.

7. Further, the prosecutrix had not reported the incident

contemporaneously in October-November of 2013 as per her testimony. The

prosecutrix in her statements stated that she was repeatedly threatened by her

father that he would stop taking care of them and also would not give the

monthly expenses. The Trial Court has extracted the testimony of the

prosecutrix in the impugned judgment. The relevant portion of the impugned

judgment reads as under:

“PW-8 is the victim herself who stated that she was

working in an NGO where she came in touch with Honey

Singh and became friendly with him. Neither Honey

Singh nor her father had committed anything wrong with

her and she does not want to tell the name of person who

raped her. She stated that her mother took her to the

hospital and her statement was recorded twice in the

court by one judge on 26.02.2014 and on 03.03.2014. She

was declared hostile by Ld. APP where she denied having

made any statement to the police that Honey Singh or her

father had committed any wrong act with her.She

however admitted that "Police wali aunty ne kaha ki tu

kisi ka bhi naam likhwa de to case khatam ho jayega

isiliye pahle meine Honey Singh ka naam likhwa diya

tha. Papa ka naam meine baad main likhwaya jab meri

dadi wagera jhagda karene lagi…… Meine judge sahab

ko apne 03.03.2014 ke bayan main bataya tha ki mere

papa daru pee kar aaye aur unhone bola ki agar mein

kisi ko bataungi to tun logo ka kharcha nahin milega

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page4of17

aur ghar se bhi nikal diye jayoge aur uske baad papa ne

mere saath sharirk sambandh banaye aur aise papa ne

mere saath teen baar kiya…. Ye bhi kahana theek hai

ki mein aur meri mother nahin chahte the ke mere papa

ka naam aaye…. doctor ko apne aap kuchh nahin

bataya."In her cross examination by defence counsel,

she admitted her date of birth mentioned in her Aadhar

card as 15.10.1996 EX.PW8/DX1 and further that her

date in the Aadhar card is correct and not in the school

record and her father had not committed any wrong act

with her and her father has been falsely implicated in

this case.”

8. The prosecution proved its case by producing PW-8i.e.,the

prosecutrix, PW-15i.e.,the mother of the prosecutrix as also PW-4i.e.,Dr.

Purnima. The Trial Court perused the DNA Reports as also the date of birth

records of the prosecutrix and came to the conclusion that at the time of

incident either by the school records or on the basis of the Aadhar Card, the

prosecutrix would be a minor. The findings of the Trial Court are set out

below:

“7. As far as the date of birth of the victim Is

concerned, PW-1 the witness from first attended

school of the victim has proved on record that

admission form of the victim when she was admitted

in the school in first class duly supported by her

MCD birth certificate Ex.PW1/B. It came in the

cross examination of this witness that the original

was duly verified by the Principal of the school at

the time of admission.The victim was admitted in

class-1 on 06.08.2007 on the basis of this birth

certificate issued by competent authority. There is

no reason to doubt the genuineness of these

document as well as date of birth of the victim

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page5of17

recorded in these documents. Though PW-8 the

victim herself admitted her Aadhar card

Ex.PW8/DX1 wherein her date of birth is

mentioned as 15.10.1996 but the same cannot be

relied upon as Aadhar card is not a valid document

to determine the age of a person under J.J. Act,

2000.The law recognizes the date birth mentioned

in the first attended school and in the absence

thereof the date of birth mentioned in MCD record

and in the absence thereof the ossification test. Once

the date of birth record mentioned in the first

attended school is available, there is no reason to go

into date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar card.

Otherwise also, PW-8 stated in her cross

examination that her Aadhar card was got

prepared by her mother when her father accused

was in jail. This document was prepared during the

trial of this case and the reason to mention wrong

date of the birth in the Aadhar card prepared in the

trial is obvious.The victim admittedly did not fully

support the prosecution in her examination in chief

and same was for the obvious pressure from the

family. The prosecution in facts has duly proved that

victim was born on 15.10.1999 and was minor at the

time of this FIR. Even if it is presumed only for the

sake of arguments that victim was born on

15.10.1996, even then on the date of this FIR i.e.

22.02.2014, she was minor. Further, she was three

months pregnant as on 22.02.2014 it means that she

was raped three months before i.e. some time in

November, 2013 and was minor even from the date

of birth alleged by the accused i.e. 15.10.1996.

8. Coming to the main incident, the victim initially

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page6of17

named her friend.

Honey Singh as culprit but later on in the written

complaint as well as in supplementary statement u/s 164

Cr.P.C. named her father accused as the person who

raped her. Though it is correct that in the court she did

not named her father in her examination in chief but in

the cross examination of Ld. APP, she admitted certain

facts which are sufficient to prove that it was the

accused who raped her. In her post lunch cross

examination by Ld. APP on 16.04.2015 on page-2 it is

stated that "Meine judge sahab ko apne 03.03.2014 ke

bayan mein bataya tha ki mere papa daaru pikar aaye

aur unhone bola ki agar mein kisi ko bataugi to tum logo

ko kharcha nahi milega. aur ghar se bhi nikaal diye

jayego aur iske baad papa ne mere saath sharirik

sambadh banaye the aur aisa papa ne mere saath teen

baar kiya. Ye kehna sahi h ki meine judge sahab ke

samne 03.03.2014 ko apne bayan mein yeh bi bataya tha

ki kuch din pehle (on 26.02.2014) meine aapke samne

joothi gawahi di thi kyunki mein dari hui thi, lekin ab

hame hamari daadi ghar se bahar nikaal rahi thi isliye

mujhe sach bolna pada."

She further stated that

"Jis makan mein hum rehte hai wo meri daadi ke naam

hai. Meri mother kuch kaam nahi karti. Mujhse chote 5

bhai behen hai. Mein ek export factory mein kaam karti

hu. Meri badi behen bhi export factory mein kaam karti

hai. Mere papa foreign tourists ko Delhi mein ghumane

ka kaam karte the aur unki kaafi achi aamdani hoti thi.

Ye kehna thik hai ki unke jail jaane ke baad se ghar ka

gujara meri badi behen aur meri salary se hi chalta hai.

Ye kehna thik hai ki mein apne papa ko jail se riha

karana chahti hu kyunki ghar ka gujara bahut muskil se

chalta hai. Ye kehna thik hai ki aaj court mein mere

saath meri Daadi aayi hui hai."

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page7of17

9. This cross examination by Ld. APP clearly shows that

victim was sexually assaulted by her father and because

of family pressure, more specifically from the grand

mother i.e. mother of the accused, the victim did not

completely named her father as the person who

committed rape upon her. The fact that her father raped

and made her pregnant was corroborated by the FSL

result Ex.PW14/G and Ex.PW14/H.As per the DNA

profile generated from the source of the exhibits, the

DNA profile of the accused matched with the DNA

profile with the fetus of victim. It did not match with

DNA profile of Honey Singh and same clearly shows

that accused fathered the aborted child of the victim.I

do not find any force in the contention of Ld. Amicus that

there was delay in sending the samples or that same

were tampered. As per record proved, the exhibits of the

victim were seized on 23.02.2014 and sent to FSL on

25.02.2014 through PW-9, the exhibits of Honey Singh

were seized on 01.03.2014 and were sent to FSL on

03.03.2014 through PW-5 and that of accused were

seized on 16.04.2014 when he was arrested and sent to

FSL on 17.04.2014 through PW-7. Samples were sent to

FSL as early as possible and in case of accused, the very

next day of the seizure. There is no delay in sending the

samples to FSL as argued for the accused and further

there is nothing on record to show that the seals of the

exhibits were tampered. The prosecution has proved

that samples were duly seized and sealed and sent to

FSL as early as possible without any tampering. There

is no reason to doubt the DNA report where DNA

profile of accused matched with that of fetus.

Prosecution has in fact duly proved that victim, a minor

was raped and made pregnant by her father accused and

as such accused is convicted for offence punishable u/s

6 of the POCSO Act read with 5(n) and (l) of POCSO

Act. Since accused has been convicted under POCSO

Act, no separate conviction is recorded for the offence

of rape punishable under IPC.”

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page8of17

9. The submission of Mr. Ahluwalia, ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that

in the present case, the FSL report being there, the Appellant is only praying

for some leniency as he has four other daughters and one son, all of whom are

very young and unmarried. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the

Appellant himself is 61 years of age and his wife is also specially abled.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Bahri, ld. APP submits that this is a case where

no leniency deserves to be shown as the present case is not one of sexual

assault but of repeated sexual assaults coupled with threats, pressure, coercion

and duress. Ld. APP submits that the prosecutrix has undergone enormous

mental pain and agony and the Appellant, who is the father, is expected to

take care of her daughter. Accordingly, the Appellant having committed the

crime, no leniency ought to be shown.

11. The Court has heard Mr. Ahluwalia, ld. Counsel appearing for the

Appellant through legal aid and Mr. Bahri, ld. APP.

12. The testimony of the prosecutrix is completely clear and there is no

doubt in respect of her testimony. Secondly, the testimony of the PW-4, Dr.

Purnimai.e.,Doctor at Lok Nayak Hospital also shows that initially, the

prosecutrix only complained of pain in the abdomen, however, upon being

examined, the victim had enormous pain and post-partum stress as well. PW-

4 in her statement also states that the prosecutrix had initially not given the

history of sexual assault by her father. The relevant portion of the said

statement reads as under:-

“On 19.02.2014, I was posted at Lok Nayak Hospital as

above. On that day, patient i.e. victim A d/o Mohd.

Zamil, age 13 years, female, was brought to the Gyne

Casualty Department of the hospital by one Ct. Ajay and

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page9of17

mother of the patient for medical examination. Initially

the patient and her mother did not give any other history

or complaint except that of pain in abdomen. After the

pregnancy of the patient was revealed during routine

tests conducted in the hospital, then the patient and her

mother gave history of sexual contact with a friend of

the patient whose name was not revealed.

The patient was examined by me and Dr. Usha

Manaktala (unit head), vide MLC Ex.PW-4/A which is

in my handwriting and bears my signatures at point "A".

On 22.02.2014 itself the patient and her mother gave

consent for termination of the pregnancy of the patient.

Accordingly, endorsement regarding the same was

made on the MLC at point "X" and the police was also

informed. When the police officials came at about 3:00

PM, the patient was having uterine contractions and

pain in abdomen and was not fit for statement. The

endorsement in this regard was given at point encircled

"Y" by Dr. Jenny, who was SR Gyne (Casualty) on duty

at that time. I can identify handwriting and signatures

of Dr. Jenny as I have seen her writing and signing

during the course of my official duties.

The police officials again came to the hospital to

record the statement of patient - victim on 23.02.2014. I

examined the patient and found that patient was not fit

for statement as she was having pain in abdomen and

post partum stress. I gave my endorsement in this regard

at point encircled "Z" on MLC and appended my

signatures at point "A-1" thereupon.

Court Ques. : Are you aware when the police recorded

statement of the patient / victim ?

Ans. No, since the statement of the patient / victim was

not recorded in my presence by the police. The police,

however, did not approach me after 23.02.2014 to find

out about the fitness of the patient to give statement.

Court Ques.: If the patient had been unfit for statement

after 23.02.2014, would the endorsement regarding it

have been made on the MLC Ex.PW-4/A itself ?

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page10of17

Ans. It is correct.

XXXXXX By Sh. Praveen Tyagi, proxy counsel for Ms.

Urmila Yadav, LAC for accused.

It is correct that the patient / victim and her mother

never gave history of sexual assault on the victim by her

father.”

13. The pregnancy was thereafter terminated with the consent of both the

prosecutrix and her mother.

14. The Trial Court in the impugned judgment has also placed reliance

upon the FSL Report. The said report concludes that the DNA of the foetus

matched with the Appellant and not with the other suspect whose name was

initially given by the prosecutrix. The FSL Report which is on record and

exhibited as Ex. PW - 14/G dated 29

th

September, 2014 gives the following

conclusion:

“The DNA profile (STR analysis) performed in the source

of exhibits '2' (i.e sample blood gauze of accused

Jamil@Baigen received in FSL vide FSL 2014/DNA-

2775) ‘3' (i.e blood on gauze of suspect

Yogender@Honey Singh received in FSL vide FSL

2014/DNA- 1550) '5'( i.e foetus received in FSL vide FSL

2014/DNA-1408) are sufficient to conclude that theDNA

profile from the source of exhibit '2' (i.e sample blood

gauze of accused Jamil@Baigen received in FSL, vide.

FSL. 2014/DNA-2775) is matching with DNA profile

generated from the source of exhibit ‘5’ (i.e. foetus ‘3’

(i.e.e blood on gauze of suspect Yogender@Honey Singh

received in FSL Vide FSL 2014/DNA- 1550) is not

matching the DNA profile generated from the source of

exhibit '5'(i.e foetus received in FSL vide FSL

2014/DNA-1408).”

15. The school record of the prosecutrix has also been exhibited and

therein, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is recorded as 15

th

October, 1999.

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page11of17

On the overall conspectus of the facts, it is clear that the prosecutrix was

subjected to sexual assault byher own father, fromwhomshe had also become

pregnant.

16. The present case is fully covered by the decision of this Court inDRY

v. State NCT of Delhi, 2026: DHC:448-DB where under similar

circumstances, the Court had observed that no leniency ought to be shown in

such cases. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:

“29. Thus, there can be no doubt, whatsoever

on the basis of the scientific evidence, that the father

i.e., the Appellant had established the physical

relationship with his own daughter, who was a

minor.

30. The Supreme Court in the decision in

Bhanei Prasad alias Raju v. State of Himachal

Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1636while dealing

with a case on similar facts where a father

repeatedly committed aggravated penetrative

sexual assault upon his own minor daughter, held as

under:

“5. The jurisprudence under the POCSO

Act has evolved as a bulwark against the

predatory crimes targeting the innocence

of childhood. Section 29 of the POCSO

Act creates a statutory presumption of

guilt, once foundational facts are

established. In the present case, this

presumption stood unrebutted. The

victim's testimony was unwavering,

medically corroborated, and free from

embellishment. Her disclosure, though

delayed, was truthful and borne out of

perennial trauma and threats she has

undergone.

6. It is now well settled that the testimony

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page12of17

of a child victim, if found credible and

trustworthy, requires no corroboration.

The Courts below have not merely

accepted the victim's account, they have

validated it through unimpeachable

scientific evidence. The DNA report

sealed the evidentiary chain and has

dispelled all doubts in the prosecution

case which is sought to be assailed by the

petitioner.

7. The argument raised before us is that

the petitioner was falsely implicated due

to strained domestic relationships and

disapproval of romantic alliances of his

daughters is completely hollow. No

daughter, however aggrieved, would

fabricate charges of this magnitude

against her own father merely to escape

household discipline.

8. This Court has repeatedly underscored

that in offences involving sexual abuse,

especially against children, the trauma

suffered by the victim is lifelong. The

scars are not merely physical but

psychological, cutting across every fibre

of trust, safety, and dignity. When the

perpetrator is none other than the father,

the natural guardian, the crime assumes

a demonic character.

9. Such offences deserve nothing but the

severest condemnation and deterrent

punishment. To pardon such depravity

under any guise would be a travesty of

justice and a betrayal of the child

protection mandate embedded in our

constitutional and statutory framework.

10. As per ancient scriptures:

“Yatra nāryastu pūjyante ramante tatra

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page13of17

devatāḥ, yatraitaastu na pūjyante

sarvāstatra aphalāḥ kriyāḥ.”

“Where women are honoured, divinity

flourishes; and where they are

dishonoured, all acts become fruitless.”

This verse reflects not merely a cultural

principle but a constitutional vision. The

dignity of women is non-negotiable, and

our legal system must not permit repeated

intrusion into that dignity under the guise

of

misplaced sympathy or alleged

procedural fairness.

11. A prayer for interim relief of bail is

also sought in the petition and our

judicial conscience does not permit

casual indulgence in a prayer for interim

relief of bail where the conviction has

been rendered after full-fledged trial,

affirmed in appeal, and the testimony of

the victim is clear, cogent, and duly

corroborated.This Court has repeatedly

held that in serious offences under the

POCSO Act, particularly those involving

familial betrayal of trust, relief cannot be

granted as a matter of routine.Where

two courts have concurrently found guilt

and the findings are not shown to be

perverse, interference under Article 136

is neither warranted nor justified in the

present case.

12. Let it be stated unambiguously that

entertaining of the present petition or

remotely considering the grant of bail in

a case of this nature, after the guilt has

been proved and affirmed, would not

merely undermine the majesty of the law,

it would amount to a betrayal of the

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page14of17

constitutional promise made to every

child of this country. It would be, in the

considered view of this Court, a judicial

insult to the sanctity of womanhood and a

blow to every mother who teaches her

child to

believe in justice.

13. When a father who is expected to be

a shield, a guardian, a moral compass,

becomes the source of the most severe

violation of a child's bodily integrity and

dignity, the betrayal is not only personal

but institutional. The law does not, and

cannot, condone such acts under the

guise of rehabilitation or reform.

Incestuous sexual violence committed by

a parent is a distinct category of offence

that tears through the foundational

fabric of familial trust and must invite

the

severest condemnation in both language

and sentence. The home, which should

be a sanctuary, cannot be permitted to

become a site of unspeakable trauma,

and the courts must send a clear signal

that such offences will be met with an

equally unsparing judicial response. To

entertain a plea for leniency in a case of

this nature would not merely be

misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal

of the Court's own constitutional duty to

protect the vulnerable. When a child is

forced to suffer at the hands of her own

father, the law must speak in a voice that

is resolute and uncompromising. There

can be no mitigation in sentencing for

crimes that subvert the very notion of

family as a space of security.”

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page15of17

31. A ld. Single Judge of this Court, in the

decision inBS v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025:

DHC:8647while upholding a conviction under

similar circumstances observed as under:

“51. The sentence of twenty years’

rigorous imprisonment thus cannot be

said to be either illegal or excessive. On

the contrary, it is a proportionate

response to the gravity of the crime, firmly

anchored in the statutory scheme and

consistent with established legal

principles. Sentencing is not an

arithmetical exercise but a solemn

judicial function requiring a balance

between individual circumstances and

society’s call for justice.Where the

victim is a minor daughter and the

offender her own father, the breach is

doubly grave, inflicting deep physical

and psychological trauma and

shattering her sense of security within

the home. In this context, the

punishment imposed affirms the dignity

of the survivor, reflects society’s

abhorrence of such crimes, and upholds

the protective mandate of POCSO.

CONCLUSION

52. The testimony of the Prosecutrix,

though not flawless, is credible on the

core allegation and stands corroborated

by the DNA report. No motive for false

implication has been demonstrated, and

the presence of the appellant’s semen in

her genital samples is incontrovertible

scientific proof of assault. In these

circumstances, the conviction is

unassailable. The punishment imposed

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page16of17

twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment is a

just and proportionate response,

reflecting both the gravity of the crime

and the statutory mandate of POCSO.”

32. The social circumstances and the

economic status of the family may have compelled

the Prosecutrix and her mother to give

contradictory statements or to turn hostile.

However, in such cases the Court cannot completely

ignore the scientific evidence which has come on

record. In the present case, the DNA testing, being

conclusive and unimpeachable evidence

establishing the factum of physical relationship of

the Appellant with the minor daughter, leaves no

scope for doubt, and accordingly, the conviction of

the Appellant cannot be faulted.

33. The provisions of the POCSO Act clearly

lead to a deeming conclusion that the Appellant is

guilty of the offences charged, and in fact, the same

constitutes a gruesome offence, considering the

relationship between the victim and the Appellant

being that of father and daughter.

34. A father who is supposed to safeguard the

safety and security of his own daughter cannot be

shown any relaxation in such cases. The

presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act

applies wholly in the present case.

35. In the opinion of this Court, the application

seeking suspension of the sentence is completely

meritless. In fact, the appeal itself is meritless.

36. The impugned judgement deserves to be

confirmed. Ordered accordingly.”

17. The conviction of the Appellant is fully tenable and does not warrant

any interference. Appellant is also present in the Court. Coming to the aspect

of sentence, ld. Counsel for the Appellant has given various mitigating

CRL.A. 10/2019 Page17of17

circumstances including his age, five more children, whom he has to take care

of, the fact that his only income is from being a rickshaw puller and that his

wife is also specially abled.

18. In the present case, the sentence that has been awarded to the Appellant

is life imprisonment. Considering the nature of the offence, the Court is not

inclined to reduce the sentence. However, the mitigating circumstances can

be relied upon by the Appellant at the time of seeking commutation of

sentence under Section 55 of the IPC read with Section 433 Cr.P.C.

19. Accordingly, the conviction and the sentence awardedvideimpugned

judgment dated 7

th

August, 2018 and order on sentence dated 10

th

August,

2018 respectively are confirmed.

20. The name of the Appellant, the prosecutrix as also her mother shall also

be redacted from all the uploaded orders and the documents.

21. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if

any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

MADHU JAIN

JUDGE

APRIL 9, 2026/ys/ck