Delhi District Court
State vs Rajesh And Ors on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 3095/2017
FIR No. : 733/2015
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 323/341/365/511/506/34 IPC
[Offences punishable u/s 323/341/511/506/34 IPC
stand compounded on 24.10.2019]
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
i) Rajesh
S/o Sh. Nathu Singh
ii) Deepak
S/o Sh. Nathu Singh
Both R/o 623, Sultanpur Colony
Chhatarpur, New Delhi
iii) Mahtab Ali
S/o Sh. Momin Khan
R/o 1126, Village Chhatarpur
New Delhi
iv) Chandrakant @ Monty
S/o Sh. Inderdev
R/o 1121, Village Chhatarpur
New Delhi .... Accused
State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 1 of 12
1. Name of Complainant : Sh. Rizwan Ali
i) Rajesh
ii) Deepak
2. Name of Accused :
iii) Mahtab Ali
iv) Chandrakant @ Monty
323/341/365/511/506/34 IPC
[Offences punishable u/s
3. Offence complained of or proved :
323/341/511/506/34 IPC stand
compounded on 24.10.2019]
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 21.06.2015
6. Date of Filing of case : 02.08.2017
7. Date of Reserving Order : 29.01.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026
Acquitted of the offence
9. Final Order :
punishable u/s 365 IPC
Argued by - Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1.1 On 21.06.2015, upon receipt of DD No. 16A, the Investigating
Officer (SI Pancham Kumar) along with Ct. Dharmveer reached Saket City Hospital, Saket, New Delhi. At the hospital, the security staff produced two boys before the IO. The PCR caller, Mukesh, informed the IO that the said two boys, along with two other associates, had physically assaulted the complainant/security guard Rizwan and had attempted to abduct him in a vehicle. Thereafter, the custody of the two apprehended boys was handed State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 2 of 12over to Ct. Dharmveer and Sh. Mangal Yadav, another security guard posted at the hospital. In the meantime, the IO proceeded to the Emergency Ward, collected the MLC No. 833/15 of the injured/complainant Rizwan, and recorded his statement.
1.2 In his statement, complainant stated that on 21.06.2015, he was on duty as a security guard in the OPD from 07:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. He further stated that on 20.06.2015 at about 12:30 p.m., one Rajesh, a Medical Representative (hereinafter "MR"), approached the OPD gate and forcibly attempted to enter the doctor's room. Despite being restrained by another security guard, Sh. Subhash, who was deputed outside the doctor's room, the said MR did not desist and managed to enter the doctor's room. After meeting the doctor, the MR came out and started abusing and threatening Sh. Subhash. The complainant stated that he intervened to pacify both parties. However, accused Rajesh also abused and threatened him, and thereafter left the hospital premises. The complainant further stated that on 21.06.2015, while he was performing his duty inside the OPD, accused Rajesh returned along with three associates, forcibly dragged him up to the OPD gate, and assaulted him. After beating him, accused Rajesh directed his associates to take the complainant outside and beat him further. Consequently, all the accused persons dragged the complainant outside and attempted to forcibly make him sit inside their vehicle, thereby attempting to abduct him. In the meantime, upon hearing the commotion, other security guards and hospital staff gathered at the spot. On seeing them, the accused persons abandoned the vehicle and attempted to flee. However, two accused persons, namely Rajesh and Deepak, were apprehended by the security staff, while the others managed to escape.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 3 of 121.3 On the basis of the statement of the complainant and his MLC, the IO registered the subject FIR, prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, and seized the Wagon-R car bearing registration no. DL-3C- BS-7549, belonging to accused Rajesh. The IO then arrested accused Rajesh and Deepak, and subsequently arrested the remaining accused persons, namely Mahtab Ali and Chandrakant @ Monty, at the instance of accused Rajesh and Mahtab Ali. Upon completion of investigation, the IO filed the charge sheet against all four accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 323/341/365/511/506/34 IPC.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. Cognizance was taken, and accused were summoned to face trial. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 CrPC. Thereafter, charge was framed against them under Section 323/341/365/511/506/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of PE.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined seven witnesses:
PW Name Nature of Testimony
PW1 Sh. Rizwan Ali Khan Complainant/Injured
PW2 PW2 Sh. Hari Shankar Tiwari Security guard/Eyewitness
PW3 Sh. Mithilesh Security guard/Eyewitness
PW4 Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Formal witness/Proved the CCTV
footage of the incident
State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 4 of 12
PW5 Retired Ct. Dharamvir Singh Assisted the IO
PW6 ASI Pooran Singh Formal witness
PW7 SI Pancham Kumar IO
4. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of:
Sl. No. Particular of Documents Ex. No.
1 Endorsement by the DO A1
2 The subject FIR A2
3 Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act A3
4 DD No. 16A dated 21.06.2015 A4
5 MLC No. 833/15 A5
4.1 In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution
witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses to be examined. PE was closed thereafter.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the four accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against them. Accused Rajesh and Deepak both stated that the incident as alleged by the prosecution never took place, and they only had a verbal altercation with the complainant. Accused Chandrakant @ Monty and Mahtab Ali both stated that they were not even present at the spot of the incident at the relevant time. They opted not to lead any DE in the affirmative.
6. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 5 of 12Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
7. It is imperative to mention here that the complainant and accused compounded the offences punishable u/s 323/341/511/506/34 IPC on 24.10.2019. As such, the subject case proceeded against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 365 IPC only.
8. Before proceeding further, it shall be apposite to note the provision of law germane for the adjudication of present proceedings:
Section 365 - Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
To establish a case u/s 365 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove:
(i) The involvement of the accused in the kidnapping or abduction, and
(ii) The intention of the accused for the kidnapped or abducted person to be kept in wrongful or secret confinement.
In its decision titled Yakub Khan S/o Late Sh. Rauf Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station AJK, District Korba (CG) in Criminal Appeal no. 798/2023 dated 04.11.2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh held, "11. The essence of the offence under Section 365 of the IPC embodies an aggravated form of offence of kidnapping as defined in Sections 360 and 361 and of abduction as defined in State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 6 of 12Section 362 IPC. Section 365 is attracted when the kidnapping or abduction is committed with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine the victim. Section 365 of the IPC lays down that where a person was abducted in order to that he might be held to ransom by his abductors, it was held that this section is applicable. The prosecution must prove:
(i) Kidnapping or abduction by the accused.
(ii) The accused thereby intended that the person kidnapped or abducted should be kept in wrongful or secret confinement.
12. To prove the ingredients of Section 365 of the IPC, it is essential that there should be abduction, if no abduction is there; the offence under Section 365 of the IPC is not made out. To prove charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind if the accused as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim. The intention can be inferred from the subsequent acts and conduct of the kidnapper or abductor."
9. Having noted the essentials of the offence punishable u/s 365 IPC, the evidence of the case shall now be evaluated.
10. PW-1/complainant Rizwan Ali Khan deposed that on 20.06.2015, he was working as a Security Guard at Saket City Hospital (now Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital) and his duty hours were from 07:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. at the OPD. He testified that at about 12:30 p.m., accused Rajesh, who presented himself as a Medical Representative (MR), attempted to forcibly enter the doctor's room. PW-1 stated that he, along with another security guard Subhash, tried to stop accused Rajesh from entering the OPD; however, accused Rajesh forcibly entered the doctor's room. After meeting the doctor, accused Rajesh came out and started abusing and threatening Subhash. PW-1 further testified that when he intervened to pacify the situation, accused Rajesh abused and threatened him, saying "Main tujhe sabak sikhaunga", and thereafter left the hospital State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 7 of 12premises. PW-1 further deposed that on 21.06.2015, while he was on duty, at about 12:30 p.m., accused Rajesh along with three other co-accused entered the OPD and pulled him outside the OPD gate. He stated that accused Rajesh along with the other co-accused assaulted him with fists and legs, and accused Rajesh told the other co-accused "Ise kheench kar le jaate hain". PW-1 testified that all the four accused pulled and dragged him towards a car bearing registration no. DL-3C-BS-7549 and attempted to forcibly put him inside the car. PW-1 further stated that during the incident, other security guards reached the spot, and on seeing them, all the accused attempted to flee. However, accused Rajesh and co-accused Deepak were apprehended at the spot, whereas the remaining two accused managed to escape, leaving the aforesaid vehicle at the spot. PW-1 further testified that the Shift-Incharge Mukesh made a call at 100 number, pursuant to which police officials arrived at the spot. The apprehended accused persons were handed over to the police along with the vehicle. PW-1 stated that his MLC was prepared, his statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded, site plan Ex. PW-1/B was prepared, the vehicle was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/C, and accused Rajesh and Deepak were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E respectively. PW-1 further deposed that on 22.06.2015, he visited PS Saket, where he saw the remaining two accused persons, namely Mahtab Ali and Chandrakant @ Monty, sitting in the police station. PW-1 correctly identified all the accused persons in court.
11. Pertinently, before his cross-examination could be recorded, the complainant compounded the offences punishable u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC with the accused. During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had not given any written complaint to the police and that no site plan was State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 8 of 12prepared at his instance. When confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, from point A to A, namely: "Buri tarah se pitne ke baad Rajesh ne kaha ki ise lekar apne saath chalo, ise baahar le ja kar marenge... aur mujhe baahar khadi apni gaadi mein jabran baithane lage.", PW-1 denied having made the said statement to the police, and claimed that the same was written by the police officials on their own. Upon being questioned by the Ld. APP for the State in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, PW-1 also denied that the accused attempted to take him inside their car. He further failed to correctly identify the accused persons, citing lapse of time since the incident.
12. It is evident from the cross-examination of PW-1 that he disowned material portions of his own testimony as recorded during his examination- in-chief, and further failed to identify the accused persons in court. Considering the fact that the dispute in question had admittedly been compounded between the complainant and the accused, it appears that the complainant deliberately resiled from his earlier version, including his statement regarding identification of the accused. However, merely on the basis of the complainant's subsequent statement that he was unable to identify the accused persons, the prosecution case cannot be discarded in toto, particularly when the presence and involvement of the accused otherwise stands established on record, in light of the CCTV footage of the incident, as also the admission of accused Rajesh and Deepak in their respective statements recorded u/s 313 CrPC.
13. That said, so far as the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has failed to bring on record sufficient and State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 9 of 12cogent material to incriminate the accused. The star witness of the prosecution has turned hostile on the most crucial ingredient of the said offence, by categorically stating that no incident of the accused attempting to take him away in their vehicle had taken place. Furthermore, the CCTV footage of the incident, which was duly scrutinised by the Court, does not lend any support to the prosecution version with respect to the alleged attempt of abduction. While the accused can be seen assaulting the complainant therein, they are not seen making any attempt to abduct him. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 365 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
14. The prosecution case is rendered further unreliable in view of the fact that the other two alleged eyewitnesses, namely PW-2 Sh. Hari Shankar Tiwari and PW-3 Sh. Mithilesh, have also failed to support the prosecution version.
15. PW-2 Sh. Hari Shankar Tiwari merely deposed that on the day of the incident he was on duty at Saket City Hospital and had heard some loud noise, upon which he noticed that security guard Rizwan was quarrelling with three to four members of the public. Significantly, PW-2 did not depose that the complainant was being assaulted by the accused persons, nor did he attribute any overt act to them. PW-3 Sh. Mithilesh completely resiled from the prosecution case and stated that he did not know anything about the present case.
16. In view of the fact that both the material eyewitnesses have failed to support the prosecution case, and there is no other independent or State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 10 of 12corroborative material on record to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution version does not inspire confidence, and cannot be held to be proved.
17. The testimonies of the remaining witnesses are largely formal in nature. PW4 Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, merely authenticated the CCTV footage contained in CD Ex PX1, and the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in support thereof. As noted earlier in this judgment, while the footage depicts an assault on the complainant, it does not show the accused attempting to abduct the complainant. Consequently, it does not add anything incriminatory against the accused.
18. PW5 Retired Ct. Dharamvir testified regarding the arrest, personal search, and recording of disclosure statements of the accused Rajesh and Deepak through memos Ex PW1/D & PW1/E, Ex PW5/A & PW5/B, and Ex PW5/C & PW5/D, respectively. He also testified about the seizure of the alleged car vide memo Ex PW1/C. PW6 ASI Pooran Singh assisted IO SI Pancham Kumar. PW7 IO SI Pancham Kumar testified regarding the formal codal procedures carried out by him, including arrest, personal search, and recording of disclosure statements of accused Rajesh and Deepak (Ex PW1/D & PW1/E, Ex PW5/A & PW5/B, and Ex PW5/C & PW5/D); seizure of the alleged car (Ex PW1/C); preparation of rukka (Ex PW7/A); arrest and personal search of accused Mahtab (Ex PW7/B & PW7/C); and issuance of notice under Section 41A CrPC to accused Chandrakant @ Monty. The testimonies of these witnesses are formal, and do not add anything incriminatory against the accused.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 11 of 1219. The testimony of PW1, the complainant, is patchy, inconsistent, and not credible. His deposition does not conform to his initial complaint or his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. This, coupled with the fact that the CCTV footage provided by the prosecution does not depict the accused's involvement in kidnapping or abduction, nor their intention to wrongfully or secretly confine the complainant, undermines the prosecution's case. It is a well-settled principle of law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and must rely solely on its own evidence. The prosecution cannot derive strength from any weakness in the case of the accused. Further, an accused has a fundamental right not to be convicted for an offence that is not established by the requisite standard of proof. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof always rests upon the prosecution and never shifts to the accused.
20. In view of the above discussion, accused Rajesh, Deepak, Mahtab Ali, and Chandrakant @ Monty are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC.
21. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance with Section 437 CrPC.
Digitally
signed by
Pronounced in open Court on
03.02.2026 in the presence
Medha Medha arya
Date:
of accused. arya 2026.02.03
16:46:10
+0530
(Medha Arya)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
03.02.2026
State vs. Rajesh & Ors.
FIR No. 733/2015, PS: Saket Page 12 of 12