Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Sabeer on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
DLCT01-009748-2018
Sessions Case No. 643/2019
FIR No. 76//2017
PS: Chandni Mahal
U/s 370/374 IPC & 75/79 of JJ Act & Section 16 BL Act
& 14 of Child and Adolescent Labour Act.
State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Ors.
a) Date of commission of offence: 18.05.2017
b) Name of the complainant : SDM Kotwali
c) Name of accused persons and 1. Mohd. Sabeer S/o Sh. Irfan
R/o Village Beria, PS Azam
address:
Nagar, District Katihar, Bihar
2. Ejaj S/o Sh. Abdul Razaq
R/o Village Imam Nagar, PS
Azam Nagar, District Katihar,
Bihar
d) Offence complained of: u/s. 370/374 IPC & 75/79 of JJ
Act & 16 BL Act & 3/14 of Child
and Adolescent Labour Act.
e) Plea of the Accused persons: Pleaded Not Guilty
f) Final Order: Both Acquitted
Date of institution of the case : 23.04.2019
Date of committal : 18.07.2019
Date on which judgment was reserved : 28.02.2026
Date of judgment : 24.03.2026
JUDGMENT
SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 1 of 13 BRIEF FACTS
1. The present case FIR was registered on the complaint of SDM Kotwali wherein it is stated that on 18/05/2017, while he was posted as SDM Kotwali, Darya Ganj, Delhi, on that the basis of a complaint, he along with staffs, officials of Labour Department, Local of the area, Tehsildar, Kotwali and Bachpan Bachao Andolan (NGO) made a joint operation in the area of PS Chandni Mahal. Delhi, Sub-Division Kotwali, Delhi and rescued 9 children, aged about 10 to 17 years, who were working as labourers in very pathetic condition, there was very poor ventilation, sanitation and very restricted movement from where the aforesaid children were rescued.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 173 of Cr.P.C was filed against the accused persons namely Mohd. Sabeer and Ejaj for offence u/s 370/374/ IPC & 75/79 JJ Act & u/s 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition), Act and 14 of Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. While accused Ashraf @ Habib Ur was kept in column no. 12 since the children found working over there were his own children. After statutory compliance, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions by Ld. MM-12, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 18.07.2019.
3. Vide order dated 10.02.2020, the accused Mohd. Sabeer was formally charged for commission of offence under Section 370/374 IPC & 75/79 JJ Act & u/s 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition), Act and accused Ejaj was formally charged for the commission of the offence Section 370/374 IPC & 75/79 JJ Act & u/s 14/16 of SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 2 of 13 Bonded Labour System (Abolition), Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution proposed to examine 46 witnesses. However, only fifteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution since vide separate statement of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PWs namely Devender Kumar, PW "Md. S S/o A", PW "MA S/o A", PW Mohd. Bilal, PW "GS S/o T", "KH S/o SM", PW Md. S S/o R" and PW Ashish Kumar, whose names have been mentioned at serial no. 4, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 in the list of witnesses, were dropped.
5. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to make a brief mention of the role and deposition of theses prosecution witnesses. The detail deposition of the witnesses is not being adverted to, as the same shall be referred to while dealing with the necessary ingredients of the offense, with which the accused has been charged, vis-a-vis the rival contentions advanced by the Ld. Addl.PP for the state as well as the ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. Even the detailed cross examination of these witnesses is not being mentioned for the sake of brevity, but the same shall be referred to during the course of appreciating the legal as well as the factual issues advanced by the parties.
5.1 PW-1 is Sh. Akhil Kumar, Additional Secretary (Health), Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh. He was posted as SDM, Kotwali, Darya Ganj, Delhi. He along with staffs, officials of Labour Department, Local police of the area, Tehsildar, Kotwali and Bachpan Bachao Andolan ( NGO made a joint rescue operation in the area of PS Chandni Mahal, Delhi, are under Sub- Division, Kotwali, Delhi and rescued 9 children, aged about 10- 17 years, who were working as labourers in very pathetic condition, there was very poor ventilation, sanitation and very restricted movement from where the aforesaid children were SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 3 of 13 rescued. He had passed appropriate orders for registration of FIR under relevant provisions of law which is Ex. PW-1/A. 5.2 PW-2 is Ms. Swati Jha, Manager, Bachpan Bachao Andolan. She was working as Co-Ordinator, Bachpan Bachao Andolan. 5.3 PW-3 is Ms. Jag Parvesh, Section Officer, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Jharoda Kalan, Najafgarh, Delhi, who was posted as Labour Inspector, Office of Joint Commissioner, New Delhi District.
5.4 PW-4 is Mr. Syed Arshad Mehdi, who was working with NGO Bachpan Bachao Andolan as Project Co-Ordinator Raid ad Rescue.
5.5 PW5 is Ms. Sapna Yadav, Welfare Officer at Mukti Ashram, Keshav Nagar, Delhi. She proved the request of the IO for releasing the children kept there after their rescue as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B, she also proved the ossification test as Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D. She also proved the receipt of those children in the Ashram and details of those children as Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F. 5.6 PW6 to PW10 are victim children.
5.7 PW11 is Retd. SI KP Malik who proved the ossification test of six rescued children, as Ex. PW11/A. 5.8 PW12 to PW14 are victim children.
5.9 PW15 is HC Kuldeep who proved the arrest memo, personal search memo, the disclosure statements of the accused persons and pointing out memos as Ex. PW15/A to Ex. PW15/H.
6. PE was closed vide order dated 18.08.2025 and thereafter, statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused persons denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are innocent. They chose not to lead defence evidence.
7. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. Ld.Adl. PP for the State submitted that case stands proved through the consistent testimony of official witnesses who participated in the rescue operation, which establishes that minor children were found at the premises in question in circumstances indicative of exploitation. The factum of recovery/rescue of children from the control and supervision of the accused persons raises a strong SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 4 of 13 presumption of trafficking and employment of children for prohibited purposes, particularly in light of the statutory scheme under Sections 370/374 IPC and the provisions of the JJ Act, Bonded Labour Act and Child and Adolescent Labour Act, which are welfare legislations requiring a purposive interpretation. It was argued that victims of such offences often turn hostile due to fear, influence or vulnerability, and therefore their non-support should not be fatal where other cogent evidence is available. It was submitted that the presence of children at the premises, coupled with the absence of any lawful justification for their engagement, and the circumstances of their rescue, sufficiently establish that they were being wrongfully employed and exploited. It was submitted that the ingredients of the offences stand satisfied and prayed that the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
9. Per Contra Ld.Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the entire prosecution case collapses as the alleged victims themselves have not supported the case in any manner and have categorically denied working for or being employed by the accused persons. It was submitted that in the absence of proof of employer-employee relationship or any form of coercion, compulsion, or exploitation, the essential ingredients of Sections 370 and 374 IPC remain unestablished. It was submitted that mere presence of children at the premises, without any evidence as to the nature of work, conditions of employment, or role of the accused, is wholly insufficient to bring home guilt. It was further submitted that there is no documentary or independent evidence such as records, licenses, photographs, videography, or testimony of any independent witness to show that SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 5 of 13 any hazardous activity or bonded labour was being carried out. It was submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish even the basic foundational facts required under the JJ Act, Bonded Labour Act, or Child and Adolescent Labour Act. It was submitted that the evidence of official witnesses, being uncorroborated and interested, cannot by itself sustain conviction, particularly when contradicted by the victims themselves. It was thus argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and it was prayed that the accused persons are entitled to acquittal.
10. Considered.
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
12. In Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, it was held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be"
true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture.
13. Further, in Jose vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & Ors., (2016) 10 SCC 519, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 6 of 13 imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted."
14. The accused persons are charged for commission of the offence u/s 370/374 IPC, 75/79 JJ Act, 2015, u/s 16 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and 3/14 Child & Adolescent Labour(Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCES
15. Section 370 IPC (Trafficking of persons) To establish an offence under Section 370 IPC, the prosecution must prove:
a) Recruitment, transportation, harbouring, transfer or receipt of a person;
b) By use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or inducement;
c) For the purpose of exploitation (including physical or sexual exploitation, slavery, servitude, or forced labour).
16. Section 374 IPC (Unlawful compulsory labour) The prosecution must establish:
a) The victim was compelled to labour;
b) Such compulsion was unlawful;
c) The labour was against the will of the victim.
17. Section 75 JJ Act, 2015 (Cruelty to child), the following must be proved:
a) The victim is a child;
b) The accused had actual charge, control, or custody of such child;
c) The accused subjected the child to assault, neglect, abuse, or cruelty likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering.
18. Section 79 JJ Act, 2015 (Exploitation of child employee) The prosecution must show:
SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 7 of 13
a) The child was employed by the accused;
b) The accused used the child for hazardous employment or for exploitation; &
c) The accused had control over the child's employment.
19. Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 It must be established:
a) Existence of a bonded labour system;
b) The victim was required to render labour due to debt, obligation, or compulsion;
c) The accused enforced or advanced such bonded labour.
20.Sections 3 & 14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The prosecution must prove:
a) The victim is a child/adolescent as defined;
b) The child was employed by the accused;
c) Such employment was in a prohibited occupation/process (Section 3);&
d) Section 14 provides punishment upon proof of such employment.
21. In the present case, the prosecution evidence falls substantially short of proving the essential ingredients of the offences charged. None of the victims examined by the prosecution have deposed that they were employed by the accused persons. In absence of any assertion of employment, the foundational requirement for offences under Section 79 of the JJ Act and Sections 3/14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour Act remains unfulfilled.
22. Out of 7 victim children, that have been examined by the prosecu - tion, three are alleged to have been recovered from the custody of the accused Ejaj and remaining four are alleged to have been recov - ered from the custody of the accused Sabeer. However, none of the SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 8 of 13 witnesses namely PW6/ Mohd. N s/o Mohd. S, PW7 /D S/o KH, PW8/Mohd. S S/o Sh. R and PW10 /AA s/o Sh. SA who were exam - ined qua accused Sabeer deposed in any manner that may advance the case of the prosecution. None of these witnesses deposed that they were working with the accused Sabeer. PW6 Mohd. N was in fact the son of the accused himself who deposed that he was appre - hended by the media persons while he was studying in the room of his father and taken to Ashram where he did the work of cleaning. PW7 deposed that he was taken by the police while he was playing with the son of the accused. PW8 Mohd. S deposed that he was lifted from the factory of the accused where he was staying for some time and was not doing any job over there. PW10 deposed that he never worked under accused Sabeer.
23. Further, none of the witnesses namely PW9/ Mohd. F s/o Mohd. R, PW12 Mohd. F s/o Mohd. B and PW14 A s/o MZ who were exam- ined qua accused Ejaj deposed in any manner that may advance the case of the prosecution. PW9 Mohd. F deposed that he never worked at Delhi. He deposed that he was apprehended by media persons during his stay at rented house of accused Ejaj when he had just got - ten up and he was washing his face. PW12 Mohd. F deposed that he had gone to the factory of accused Ejaj to meet his cousin who was working there and from there he was apprehended. PW14 victim A deposed that he was lifted by the police from a rented accommoda - tion of his brother Kesar.
24. A significant aspect of the present case is that the alleged victims have categorically denied having worked for the accused persons altogether. Their testimonies do not merely fail to support the SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 9 of 13 prosecution case; rather, they completely negate the existence of any employer-employee relationship. In such circumstances, the very foundation of the prosecution story stands demolished. None of wit- nesses examined deposed that they ever worked with the accused persons and as such, no question of determining that they were made to work forcefully is required to be considered. Even otherwise, there is no investigation qua the nature of premises where the chil - dren were allegedly kept and made to work. No photographs/ videography of the premises is on record. No documentary evidence that the accused persons were indulging in the said profession at the relevant time i.e. the trade license, electricity bills, etc. have been placed on record.
25. In the absence of any assertion of employment by the victims themselves, it cannot be presumed that they were engaged in any labour under the accused persons. This fact is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly for offences under Sections 374 IPC, 79 of the JJ Act, and Sections 3/14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour Act, all of which fundamentally require proof of employment or engagement of the victims.
26. Further, once the victims themselves deny working under the accused, the question of exploitation, forced labour, cruelty, or bonded labour does not arise. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any independent or documentary evidence to contradict the victims' stand or to otherwise establish such relationship.
27. There is also no documentary evidence such as employment records, wage registers, or any other material to establish an employer- employee relationship. The prosecution has further failed to examine SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 10 of 13 any independent witness or co-worker to corroborate such a relationship.
28. Further, there is no material on record to connect the accused persons with the premises in question. No ownership documents, tenancy records, licences, or commercial electricity connection have been proved to show that the accused were running any establishment at the said premises. In absence of such linkage, the very substratum of the prosecution case regarding operation of any trade or activity by the accused collapses.
29. Another material lacuna in the prosecution case is that the nature of work allegedly performed by the child victims has not been established at all. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence to show what specific tasks, duties, or activities the victims were engaged in at the premises. In the absence of any such evidence, it remains wholly unproved as to what exact work, if any, the child victims were supposed to perform.
30. This omission assumes critical importance, particularly for offences under Section 370 IPC, Section 374 IPC, Section 79 of the JJ Act, and Sections 3/14 of the Child and Adolescent Labour Act, where the nature of work and its exploitative or prohibited character is a foundational requirement. Without clarity or proof regarding the nature of alleged work, the prosecution case rests on vague and unsubstantiated assertions, which cannot form the basis of conviction.
31.With regard to the allegation of trafficking under Section 370 IPC, there is not even an iota of evidence to show recruitment, transportation, harbouring, or receipt of the victims by the accused SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 11 of 13 persons. None of the victims have alleged any force, coercion, inducement, or deception. There is equally no evidence of exploitation in any form. Thus, the essential ingredients of trafficking are completely absent.
32.Similarly, for an offence under Section 374 IPC, there must be clear evidence of unlawful compulsion to labour. However, none of the victims have stated that they were forced or compelled to work against their will. In absence of any such testimony, the charge under Section 374 IPC is not sustainable.
33.As far as Section 75 of the JJ Act is concerned, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused had control or custody of the child and subjected such child to cruelty or neglect. In the present case, not only is there no evidence of cruelty or ill-treatment, but even the factum of custody or control has not been established.
34.Likewise, for invoking Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, the prosecution was required to establish the existence of a bonded labour system involving debt or obligation. No such evidence has been brought on record. There is nothing to indicate that any of the victims were working under debt bondage or compulsion of that nature.
35.It is also significant that no videography or photographs of the premises have been produced to substantiate the alleged working conditions or existence of any establishment. The absence of such corroborative evidence further weakens the prosecution case.
36.Moreover, it has come on record that one of the alleged victims is the son of one of the accused persons, who was also taken during the so-called "rescue" operation. This circumstance raises serious doubt SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 12 of 13 regarding the manner in which the raid/rescue was conducted and casts a shadow on the credibility of the prosecution version.
37.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of any of the offences charged against the accused persons. The evidence on record does not prove employment, exploitation, coercion, trafficking, or existence of any bonded labour system. The accused persons cannot be connected with the alleged premises or activity.
38.Accordingly, the accused persons namely Mohd. Sabeer and Ejaj are entitled to benefit of doubt and are hereby acquitted of all the charges. Digitally signed by BHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH Announced in the open court SINGH Date: 2026.03.24 (Judgment contains 13 pages) 16:09:43 +0530 (Bhupinder Singh) ASJ-05, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 24.03.2026 SC no. 643/2019 State Vs. Mohd. Sabeer & Anr. FIR No. 76/2017 PS: Chandni Mahal Page No. 13 of 13