On September 23, 2025, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta compared Delhi government officials to Hanuman and said they remembered their authority only when faced with a situation akin to having their “tails set on fire”.
| Photo Credit: ANI

The Delhi High Court said the material filed by OpIndia “prima facie nowhere shows” that Chaturvedi was involved in “running extortion rackets” as alleged in the impugned articles. File.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

Additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal dismissed the complaint. (File)

New Delhi:

A Delhi court has sought doctors’ opinion on the injuries of a seven-year-old girl, saying that though she had retracted allegations of sexual and physical assault of ‘diabolical manner’ against her adoptive family members, her possible “tutoring” cannot be ruled out.

Additional Sessions Judge Gomati Manocha passed the directions on January 27, quoting British-American poet W H Auden, saying as, “There is always another story. There is more than meets the eye.”

The judge summoned the doctors, who performed the MLC of the girl post her complaint in February 2023, while deciding the bail application of the alleged victim’s adoptive brother, accused of sexually and physically assaulting her.

The judge said that though the girl later explained her wounds as accidents, the “nature of injuries” did not align with her testimony in the court earlier.

“This court cannot lose sight of the fact that the victim is a young girl of tender age of seven years (six-year-old at the time of complaint),” the judge said.

In her complaint, the alleged victim had mentioned about her adoptive mother subjecting her to cruelty, including beatings, cutting her tongue with a knife, causing burn injury on her palm with a burning piece of coal, and hitting her with sticks, wires and charger, hammer, rolling pin (belan), wiper, spoon or anything she could catch hold of.

The woman also strangulated the six-year-old, gave fist blows on her chest, cut injuries on her thighs and private part area with a knife, made her sit on hot gas burner and hot cooking utensil, bit her with her teeth, and stripped her naked and forced her to stay in the balcony in the night in cold winter, it said.

The complaint also mentioned about the present accused beating up the girl after tying her hands and hanging her from a ceiling fan, and he also kissed her once or twice. Similar allegations were earlier made by the victim in her statement before a court, the judge noted.

The judge also noted that the medical report mentioned several grave injuries that matched the girl’s initial allegations.

The judge further noted that though the girl was handed over to her biological parents, but since they were accused of not reporting the crime, punishable under the POCSO (Prevention of Child from Sexual Offence) Act, and related to her adoptive parents, “the possibility of the victim being tutored, influenced, intimidated and coerced cannot be ruled out”.

“In these circumstances, before the bail application can be considered, it is pertinent to record the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature and possible causes of injuries upon the persons of the victim,” the judge said.

The judge had summoned the doctors, who recorded the alleged victim’s medical report post her complaint, on February 10, 2025.

She noted that though the alleged victim did not oppose the bail application of her adoptive brother, however, on questioning her as to whether he should be admitted to bail, she spoke quickly at length without any pauses in a manner “as if she was speaking through her rote memory and has been tutored”.

“From her demeanour, it appears that she is under the influence of someone,” the judge said.

The defence counsel had sought bail on the ground that the alleged victim in the case has already been examined and she had not supported the prosecution case.

The defence counsel told the judge that the accused was on interim bail for one year to take care of his ailing father, a co-accused in the case, and he did not misuse the relief during the period.

The judge, however, said that the interim bail was allowed on “humanitarian grounds and not on merits of the case” to take care of his ailing father.

The application further told the court that the girl’s adoptive mother, also a co-accused in the case, has already been granted bail by the Delhi High Court.

The prosecution opposed the application, saying that even though the girl did not support the prosecution case in its entirety, it seemed that she was under the influence of the accused persons.

According to the prosecution, the complaint was registered after the school teachers noticed her injuries and handed her over to a child protection officer in February, 2023.

The alleged victim had also informed the officer that her adoptive mother had beaten and threatened her.

The court had earlier denied bail to the applicant, observing that “the nature of injuries sustained by the victim due to the cruel treatment meted out to her is grievous. She is a young girl of seven years of age. The offences have been committed in a diabolical manner by adoptive family members of the victim… Since the offences have been committed against the victim by her own family members, it is likely that if the accused is released on bail he shall influence the young victim with a view to mold her testimony in his favour in order to prejudice trial”. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A Delhi court has acquitted a man in an alleged case of rape of his minor student in 2019 and observed the complainant was in a consensual relationship with him.

Additional sessions judge Ajay Nagar was hearing the case against a tuition teacher against whom the girl, a class 12 student at that time, got a complaint registered alleging she had been repeatedly raped between 2015 and 2018, besides being threatened and forced to watch porn.

The court, however, underlined material contradictions in the girl’s statements.

In a 45-page judgement passed on December 5, the court considered the evidence and held, “Accused is acquitted of all charges…” Elaborating on the reasons behind its verdict, the court said the prosecution could not prove the complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged offence and therefore the provision for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act could not be invoked.

It noted the complainant’s testimony of having looked at a “vulgar picture inadvertently” and resiling from her statement that the accused showed her pornographic videos.

“Moreover, the explanation given by the survivor for not disclosing such facts of sexual abuse to her family members or police is not plausible,” the court said, “after the alleged rape, the girl did not raise an alarm and instead, she accompanied the accused, who dropped her home”.

Noting her testimony about being “attracted” towards the accused and writing him “love letters”, the court held the girl was having “a consensual and romantic relationship” with the accused.

It took note of submissions of defence counsels Nivesh Sharma and Ritu Singh about the complainant wanting to marry the accused, but getting a false rape case registered as he married another woman.

“It is clear from the record that the accused got married to some other woman somewhere in the year 2018 but before the registration of FIR in the present case. No plausible explanation has been given for not making the complaint against the accused for more than three years which clearly shows that it was the case of a consensual and romantic relationship between the accused and the survivor,” said the court.

The complainant continued with her tuition classes despite the sexual assault, it underscored.

“It is highly improbable that a girl would go to such a place continuously despite the fact that penetrative sexual assaults are repeatedly being committed upon her forcibly,” the court pointed out.

The verdict further observed the absence of forensic evidence against the accused and held the mere fact that the complainant’s hymen was found ruptured, did not prove the offence.

“There is nothing on record to prove the fact that penetrative sexual assaults were committed upon the survivor by the accused except from the testimony of the survivor but it is not reliable, trustworthy and does not inspire the confidence of the court as there are material contradictions,” the court said.

It said though an accused could be convicted based on the survivor’s sole testimony, it had to be of a “sterling quality”.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid on Monday moved a Delhi court seeking interim bail in a terror-funding case to attend the Parliament session.

After Rashid urged Principal District and Sessions Judge Vimal Kumar Yadav to grant him the reprieve, the court asked the National Investigation Agency to file a response by November 27.

Engineer Rashid, appearing virtually in court from Tihar Jail, said, “I have been elected by my people. I was not allowed to attend the last session. With folded hands I request you that I may be granted interim bail.” During the proceedings, the counsel for Rashid and the NIA jointly sought the matter to remain in the court hearing it and not transfer it to another court.

The court would further hear both sides on November 27. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Financial means is not the only ground to decide the custody of a child to a parent, a Delhi court has said while awarding interim custody of two children to their mother.

Metropolitan Magistrate Sana Khan was hearing a plea filed by a woman under the provision of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act seeking custody of her two children.

The woman sought custody of her five-year-old daughter and two-year-old on the grounds of being their mother and natural guardian, while her husband opposed the application, saying he was a doting father, capable of providing the requisite comforts to the children, the court noted.

It said, “This court is cognisant of the legal proposition that while deciding custody issues, the paramount welfare of the minor child involved has to be gauged and taken care of and the court has to ensure the child’s physical, mental, psychological and financial well-being.”

Relief under provisions of the PWDV Act “must be guarded by the principles of paramount welfare theory in favour of the child who in almost all matrimonial litigations remains least represented”, the court added.

It said while deciding the custody of the children, the court has to look into various factors like their age, gender, preference and the suitability of the parties to ensure their maximum welfare.

“Unarguably, respondent no 1 (father) is a man of means and capable of providing the best education, healthcare and lifestyle to his children. It is also undisputed that the financial capacity of a party is a compelling consideration, however, sadly financial means is not the only ground to decide the custody of the children,” the court said.

It said that the father was a commercial pilot in a foreign country, admittedly away for work for 10-12 days a month, and despite hiring domestic help and calling his parents to the country to take care of the children, these measures could not be substituted for the mother’s desire to provide care, love and affection to her children.

It said that both parties had an equally good claim over the children but considering the tender age of the children, the odds tilted more in the complainant’s or mother’s favour.

“This court is of the view that if children are denied their mother’s company in such crucial and formative years of their lives, it would be detrimental to their overall development and well-being and there is nothing on record which shows that complainant is unfit to have custody of the children,” the magistrate said.

“Hence, I am of the view that children being given to their mother, who is yearning for her reunion with the children, would only help the children to grow and develop physically, physiologically and mentally. Merely the fact that the complainant is dependent upon her parents for subsistence is no grounds to deny her the custody of her children,” she added.

The court said that the mother was “absolutely fit” to take care of the children and that their welfare would be ensured if she was granted interim custody.

It said, “Accordingly, respondent no. 1 is directed to hand over the custody of the children to the complainant within three weeks from the date of this order. The complainant will have interim custody of the children till the final disposal of the case, or their permanent custody is decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, whichever is earlier.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A Delhi court is likely to pronounce on August 1 its order on the anticipatory bail plea of IAS probationer Puja Khedkar, accused in a case of cheating and forgery.

Additional Sessions Judge Devender Kumar Jangala on Wednesday reserved the order after hearing arguments on the application filed by Khedkar, who claimed through her lawyer that she has an “imminent threat of arrest”.

During the proceeding, the prosecution as well as the counsel appearing for the UPSC opposed the application, claiming she has “cheated the system”.

“This person has abused the law and process of law. The chances of her abusing the law is still there. She is a resourceful person,” the counsel appearing for the UPSC claimed before the court. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A Delhi court has sentenced a 70-year-old man to imprisonment for a year for hurling a corrosive substance on a dog that caused it to lose one of its eyes, and observed that “life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to any human”.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Richa Sharma also said that the “serious and grave” offence was bone-chilling and it shook the court’s conscience and that granting any leniency would convey an adverse message to society.

Sharma was hearing the case against Mahendra Singh, who was earlier convicted for the offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 429 (mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees) and under the provision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

According to the prosecution, after the complainant’s dog barked at Singh, he went inside his house, brought a corrosive liquid and threw it on the dog on February 7, 2020, in the Paharganj area of Delhi.

Advocate Rhythm Sheel Srivastava appeared for the complainant.

“Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to any human. A human being is expected to remember that his action towards animals reflects humanity. It is our responsibility to be compassionate and kind to animals,” the court said.

“The convict has committed an offence in a manner which shakes not only the conscience of this court but is bone-chilling as well. The act of throwing some corrosive or burning substance which resulted in the loss of one eye of the dog is serious and grave, and letting off such a person with less punishment and granting any leniency to the convict will convey an adverse message to society,” it added in its judgment dated July 27.

The court noted the submission of the public prosecutor seeking maximum punishment and that of the defence counsel about taking a lenient view because of the convict’s age, medical condition and poor economic condition.

“The criminal trial can not be equated with the mock scene of any stunt film. The legal trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused arraigned and the courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused,” it said.

The court sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment of one year and a Rs 10,000 fine.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)