Delhi District Court
State vs Guddu Kumar on 1 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 4556/2022
CNR No. -: DLWT020075612022
FIR No. -: 272/2018
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 363/174A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
GUDDU KUMAR
S/o Rajender Gosai,
R/o Village Belahiyan, P.S. Ahiya Pur,
Distt. Muzzaffar Pur, Bihar.
... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Ram Dutt
2. Name of Accused :- Guddu Kumar
person
3. Offence complained of :- 363/174A IPC
or proved
4. Plea of Accused person :- Not Guilty U/s 363 IPC
and Guilty U/s 174A IPC
5. Date of Commission of :- 15.10.2018 & 08.05.2019
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 05.04.2022
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 19.03.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 01.04.2026
9. Final Order :- Guddu Kumar: Convicted
U/s 174A IPC and
Acquitted U/s 363 IPC
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Amresh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Digitally
signed by
ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.01
16:34:43
+0530
Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 15.10.2018 at unknown time at H.No. 52/41, Gali No. 17, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat the accused namely Guddu Kumar has kidnapped the victim namely Suhana Kumari, daughter of complainant namely Ram Dutt, who was aged about 15 1/2 years, from the lawful guardianship of her parents and without their consent. Furthermore, it is the case of prosecution that on 08.05.2019 the accused was declared absconder in present FIR and he was subsequently apprehended and produced before the court on 18.09.2025. As such, it is alleged that the accused person has committed the offences punishable under section 363/174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Anand Parbat.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned and during investigation the accused was declared as absconder. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 of CrPC was prepared against the abovenamed accused person namely Guddu Kumar and chalan was presented in the court on 05.04.2022. After taking cognizance of the offence, proceedings were initiated U/s 299 CrPC. During the course of said proceedings, the accused person was apprehended and produced before court on 18.09.2025. The accused was Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.01 16:34:49 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 2 of 21 thereafter released on court bail.
3. The accused submitted that he has no objection in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under section 363/174A IPC was framed against accused person on 01.11.2025. The accused person pleaded not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 363 IPC and claimed trial. However, the accused pleaded guilty for the offence punishable U/s 174A IPC and was convicted as well as sentenced for the same vide order dated 01.11.2025. Thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused person to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Virender Giri (Neighbour of accused) PW2 :- Suresh Gosai (Neighbour of accused) PW3 :- Rajender (Father of accused) PW4 :- Surender Giri (Brother of accused) PW5 :- Savari (Wife of complainant) [Summoned on application U/s 311 CrPC filed by Ld. APP for the State] PW6 :- Suhana Kumari (Victim) [Summoned on application U/s 311 CrPC filed by Ld. APP for the State] DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. P1 :- Photographs of daughter of complainant Ex. PW1/A :- Statement of complainant ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:34:56 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 3 of 21 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC) Ex. AD-1 :- FIR without admitting the contents Ex. AD-2 :- Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred as Evidence Act) Ex. AD-3 :- Endorsement on rukka Ex. AD-4 :- DD. No. 31A dt. 23.11.2018 Ex. AD-5 :- DD. No. 18A dt. 26.11.2018 Ex. AD-6 :- DD. No. 47A dt. 23.11.2018 Ex. AD-7 :- DD. No. 30A dt. 01.12.2018 Ex. AD-8 :- DD. No. 42A dt. 10.02.2019 Ex. AD-9 :- DD. No. 34A dt. 27.02.2019 Ex. AD-10 :- DD. No. 42A dt. 27.02.2019 Ex. AD-11 :- DD. No. 38A dt. 23.03.2019 Ex. AD-12 :- DD. No. 35A dt. 26.03.2019 Ex. AD-13 :- DD. No. 79A dt. 02.05.2019 Ex. AD-14 :- DD. No. 43A dt. 05.02.2019 Ex. AD-5 :- DD. No. 21A dt. 05.05.2019 WITNESSES DROPPED/DELETED Name & Role of Date of Reason for drop/deletion Witness Order Vinod Giri (Public 12.10.2023 Expired Witness) Ram Dutt 25.09.2025 Expired (Complainant) Narender Gosai 14.01.2026 On the submission made (Public Witness) by Ld. APP for the State as the witness seemed to be medically unfit to appear physically and since all the material witnesses including the victim and her mother have turned hostile to the case of prosecution Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:35:04 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 4 of 21
5. During the course of trial PW Ram Dutt was examined U/s 299 CrPC wherein he has deposed that he resides at H.No. 52/41, B-3, Gali No. 17, Nayi Basti, Anand Parbat along with his family, which includes his two sons and one daughter. He further deposed that on 13.10.2018 at about 4:00 PM, his daughter namely Suhana Kumari had left the house without telling anyone and they made search of their daughter but could not find her. He further deposed that he has suspicion that one person namely Guddu had kidnapped his daughter. He further deposed that the said Guddu used to reside on the first floor of the abovesaid house. He further deposed that thereafter; he made complaint Ex. PW1/A in PS Anand Parbat on 15.10.2018. He further deposed that his daughter's age at that time was around 15 and ½ years. He further deposed that he had mentioned all the description with regard to my daughter in my complaint Ex.PW1/A. 5.1. The complainant Ram Dutt was not cross examined by the accused because after the accused was apprehended the complainant has expired and his further evidence was closed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25.09.2025.
6. Virender Giri (PW1) is the neighbour of accused in present case and he was examined in chief wherein he deposed that he resides at Village Belhiya, P.S. Ahiya Pur, District Muzzaffar Pur, Bihar since his childhood and accused is also a resident of their village and he went to Delhi in search of employment few years back. PW1 further deposed that the accused came to the village along with a girl and stayed in the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:35:11 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 5 of 21 village for few days. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, he went away with that girl to a place unknown to him and he does not know anything else about the present case. The witness has correctly identified the accused in court. However, PW1 had failed to identify the victim from the photograph Ex. P1 and has stated that he is not sure whether the girl shown in the photograph was the one who accompanied the accused at the time when he saw them in the village.
6.1. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and he deposed that he does not remember the date on which, he saw the accused along with the girl in the village. PW1 further deposed that he does not remember whether it was in the year 2019. PW1 denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the daughter of the complainant because accused is a native from his village. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he is under any kind of fear and pressure, or he has entered into some kind of settlement from the accused and that is why, he is not identifying the girl shown in the photograph Ex. P 1. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
6.2. PW1 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
7. Suresh Gosai (PW2) is the neighbour of accused and he was examined-in-chief on 01.11.2025 wherein he deposed that he resides at Village Belhiya, P.S. Ahiya Pur, District Muzzaffar Pur, Bihar since his childhood and accused is also a resident of their village and he went to Delhi in search of employment few years back. PW2 further deposed that the accused came to the ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:35:17 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 6 of 21 village along with a girl and stayed in the village for few days. PW2 further deposed that thereafter, he went away with that girl to a place unknown to him and he does not know anything else about the present case. The witness has correctly identified the accused in court, but failed to identify the victim from photograph Ex. P1 and has stated that he is not sure whether the girl shown in the photograph was the one who accompanied the accused at the time when he saw them in the village.
7.1. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and he deposed that he does not remember the date on which, he saw the accused along with the girl in the village. PW2 further deposed that he does not remember whether it was in the year 2019. PW2 admitted the fact that he does not remember the face of the girl because long time has been elapsed. PW2 denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the daughter of the complainant because accused is a native from his village. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he is under any kind of fear and pressure, or he has entered into some kind of settlement from the accused and that is why, he is not identifying the girl shown in the photograph Ex. P 1. PW2 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
7.2. PW2 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
8. Rajender (PW3) is the father of accused and he deposed that he is residing at Village Balehiya, Jhapaha, Muzaffarpur Bochaha, Bihar since his childhood and he work as a labour. PW3 further deposed that accused Guddu Kumar is his Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:35:23 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 7 of 21 son and the witness has correctly identified the accused. PW3 further deposed that the accused came to village along-with the girl and stayed in the village for few days. PW3 further deposed that thereafter he went away with that girl to an unknown place and he does not know anything else about the present case. The witness has correctly identified the victim from photograph Ex. P1 as the girl who accompanied his son to the village.
8.1. PW3 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
9. Surender Giri (PW4) is the brother of accused and he deposed that he is residing at Village Balehiya, Jhapaha, Muzaffarpur Bochaha, Bihar since his childhood and he works as a labour. PW4 further deposed that accused Guddu Kumar is his brother and the witness has correctly identified the accused. PW4 further deposed that the accused came to village along-with the girl and stayed in the village for few days. PW4 further deposed that thereafter he went away with that girl to an unknown place and he does not know anything else about the present case. The witness has correctly identified the victim from photograph Ex. P1 as the girl who accompanied his brother to the village.
9.1. PW4 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
10. Savari (PW5) is the wife of complainant and mother victim in present case and she was examined in chief wherein she deposed that the present case was filed by her husband Sh. Ram Dutt as her daughter had love marriage with the accused without ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:35:30 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 8 of 21 his consent and choice in the year 2018. PW5 further deposed that now her daughter is happily married to accused and has three children from him, she does not wish to state anything else.
10.1. PW5 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and she denied the suggestion that accused had kidnapped her daughter from her and her husband's lawful custody on 13.10.2018. PW5 further denied the suggestion that her daughter was a minor at the time of kidnapping. PW5 has admitted the fact that accused was residing on the first floor of the same house in which she was residing on the second floor at the time of the incident. PW5 also admitted the fact that her husband had made complaint to the police regarding kidnapping of their daughter. PW5 voluntarily deposed that her husband had filed the complaint because her daughter had love marriage without consent. PW5 further deposed that the accused did not kidnap her daughter. PW5 further deposed she can identify the signatures of her husband as she had seen him write and sign. The witness has identified the signatures of her husband on Ex.PW-1/A at point A. PW5 further denied the suggestion that she is intentionally and deliberately not disclosing the complete facts as she has been won over by the accused. PW5 also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely 10.2. PW5 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
11. Suhana Kumari (PW6) is the victim in present case and she was examined in chief wherein she deposed that the present case was filed by her father Sh. Ram Dutt as she had love Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL 16:35:37 Date: 2026.04.01 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 9 of 21 marriage with the accused without his consent and choice in the year 2018. PW6 further deposed that now she is happily married to accused and has three children from him. PW6 further deposed that she does not wish to state anything else. PW6 has correctly identified the accused.
11.1. PW6 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and she denied the suggestion that accused had kidnapped her from her parent's lawful custody on 13.10.2018. PW6 further denied the suggestion that she was a minor at the time of kidnapping. PW6 admitted the fact that accused was residing on the first floor of the same house in which she was residing on the second floor at the time of the incident. PW6 further denied the suggestion that she is intentionally and deliberately not disclosing the complete facts as she has been won over by the accused. PW6 further denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
11.2. PW6 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
12. All the public witnesses cited by the prosecution, including the victim and her mother, except the complainant, who has expired, have turned completely hostile to the case of prosecution. The involvement of accused person in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless his involvement is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the present case, since the public witnesses, including the victim and her mother, of the case have not supported the version of the prosecution, no fruitful purpose would have been served to examine other witnesses as they are Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:35:49 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 10 of 21 formal in nature and even if their testimonies ever taken together, they will not establish the guilt of the accused person.
13. Prosecution evidence was closed, vide separate order passed on 14.01.2026, as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would have resulted in to wastage of judicial time, money, resources and would have also caused unnecessary oppression to the accused person who has anyhow faced the ordeal of the trial in the present case for last more than five years. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
13.1. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2018 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused person would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused person. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:35:55 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 11 of 21 in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON
14. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused person Guddu Kumar to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of accused was recorded without oath on 12.02.2026 under section 281 r/w Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present matter under. He further stated that he does not wish to lead any defense evidence.
ARGUMENTS
15. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
16. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused person. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be punished for the said offences.
17. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for accused person has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that all the public witnesses have turned hostile and despite reading their evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:36:01 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 12 of 21 prayed that the accused person be acquitted for the said offence punishable U/s 363 IPC.
18. Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required to be met. In order to establish the offence of kidnapping, the prosecution must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence. Section 361 of the IPC prescribes the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship. As per the provision, any person taking or enticing the minor from the keeping of the lawful guardian, without the consent of the guardian, commits the offence of kidnapping, punishable under Section 363 of IPC. Thus, it is indispensable for the prosecution to prove the following -:
a. "Taking" or "enticing" by the accused; b. Minority of the person kidnapped; c. Such kidnapping should be from the keeping of the guardian; and d. No consent of the lawful guardian.
19. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
PROOF OF MINORITY
20. At the outset, the prosecution was required to prove that victim was a minor on the date of kidnapping i.e.,15.10.2018. To prove the same the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant who was examined in the ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:36:07 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 13 of 21 absence of accused, U/s 299 CrPC, as the accused was declared absconder. Complainant Ram Dutt has deposed that his daughter's age was around 151/2 years at the time of incident. In this regard it is also pertinent to discuss here the law regarding evidentiary value of a witness who has been examined U/s 299 CrPC. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the power of the Court to record evidence in absence of the accused in Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi1 has held as under: -
30. Section 299 of CrPC expressly provides for the power of the Court to record evidence in absence of the accused in the following term: -
"299. Record of evidence in absence of accused.-- (1) If it is proved that an accused person has absconded, and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the court competent to try or commit for trial, such person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution, and record their depositions and any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable.
(2) If it appears that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed by some person or persons unknown, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct that any Magistrate of the First Class shall hold an inquiry and examine any witnesses who can give evidence concerning the offence and any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person who is subsequently accused of the offence, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or beyond the limits of India."
31. Sub-section (1) of Section 299 CrPC is in two parts, the first part provides for proof of jurisdictional fact in respect of abscondence of an accused person and the second that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him. In the event, an order Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
1 [2024] 6 S.C.R. 2026.04.01
16:36:13 +0530
Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 14 of 21
under the said provision is passed, deposition of any witness taken in the absence of an accused may be used against him if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable.
32. This Court in the case of Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana2 while considering the issue that under what circumstances and by what method, the statement of a witness under Section 299 of CrPC could have been tendered in the case for being admissible under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and whether they can form the basis of conviction, held as follows:
"4. .....Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure consists of two parts. The first part speaks of the circumstances under which witnesses produced by the prosecution could be examined in the absence of the accused and the second part speaks of the circumstances when such deposition can be given in evidence against the accused in any inquiry or trial for the offence with which he is charged. This procedure contemplated under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is thus an exception to the principle embodied in Section 33 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as under Section 33, the evidence of a witness, which a party has no right or opportunity to cross-examine is not legally admissible. Being an exception, it is necessary, therefore, that all the conditions prescribed, must be strictly complied with. In other words, before recording the statement of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, the court must be satisfied that the accused has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, as provided under the first part of Section 299 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.... .....There possibly cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law that for taking the benefits of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the conditions precedent therein must be duly established and the prosecution, which proposes to utilise the said statement as evidence in trial, must, therefore, prove about the existence of the preconditions before tendering the evidence.....
....On a mere perusal of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 33 of the Evidence Act, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the preconditions in both the sections must be established by the prosecution and it is only then, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 299 CrPC before the arrest of the accused can be utilised in evidence in trial Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR 2 [2000] 2 SCR 807 : (2000) 4 SCC 41 Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.01 16:36:19 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 15 of 21 after the arrest of such accused only if the persons are dead or would not be available or any other condition enumerated in the second part of Section 299 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is established...."
(emphasis supplied)
33. Further, in the case of Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Another3 it was held as follows: -
"25. It is also beyond any cavil that the provisions of Section 299 of the Code must receive strict interpretation, and, thus scrupulous compliance therewith is imperative in character. It is a well-known principle of interpretation of statute that any word defined in the statutory provision should ordinarily be given the same meaning while construing the other provisions thereof where the same term has been used. Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act like any other fact, the prosecution must prove by leading evidence and a definite categorical finding must be arrived at by the court in regard to the fact required to be proved by a statute. Existence of an evidence is not enough but application of mind by the court thereupon as also the analysis of the materials and/ or appreciation thereof for the purpose of placing reliance upon that part of the evidence is imperative in character.
29. Indisputably both the conditions contained in the first part of Section 299 of the Code must be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. Satisfaction of one of the requirements should not be sufficient...."
(emphasis supplied)
21. Thus, even if the testimony of complainant, which was recorded U/ 299 CrPC is read in evidence, the same does not help the case of prosecution to prove the minority of victim, because no documentary evidence was tendered into evidence by the prosecution to prove the minority of victim on the date of incident. The documentary evidence becomes more important because the victim/PW6 has denied the suggestion put to her by the Ld. APP for the state regarding the fact that she was minor on the date of incident. The complainant has not deposed about the date of birth of victim but has only stated the victim was around Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL 3 PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 [2009] 8 SCR 591 : (2009) 7 SCC 104 16:36:26 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 16 of 21 151/2 years, at the time of incident. In the whole evidence of the prosecution, the date of birth of victim is not revealed. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim was minor on date of offence. As such, the condition precedent to invoking the present offence is not fulfilled in the present case. Even otherwise, there are other circumstances that warrant acquittal of the accused.
NO "TAKING" OR "ENTICING"
22. The gravamen of the offence is either "taking" of "enticing" of the minor, by the accused. There is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that the accused had taken the victim from the custody of the parents or that he had enticed the minor to accompany him. As per the testimony of the complainant it is evident that he has deposed that his daughter had left his house at about 04:00 PM on 13.10.2018 and he further deposed that he has suspicion that accused had kidnapped his daughter. However, PW5 is the mother of victim and wife of complainant and she has deposed that the present case was filed by her husband/complainant as the victim had love marriage with the accused, without the consent of complainant. PW6/victim has also deposed the same. PW5 or PW6 have not deposed anything regarding the fact that accused had taken or enticed the victim. No statement U/s 164 CrPC of the victim was recorded during the investigation. Although consent of the minor is irrelevant for the present offence {Refer, Prakash vs. State of Haryana (2004) 1 SCC 339}, there is nothing on record even otherwise to suggest that the accused did any act at the time when the victim left the custody of her parents or any time prior thereto. The parents of Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:36:33 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 17 of 21 the victim have also not deposed regarding any such circumstance.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the leading case of S. Varadarajan vs. State of Madras (1965) 1 SCR 243, has observed as under: -
"9. It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian.
10. It would, however, be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the father's protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. In our opinion, if evidence to establish one of those things is lacking it would not be legitimate to infer that the accused is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she has actually left her guardian's house or a house where her guardian had kept her, joined the accused and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian's house by taking her along with him from place to place. No doubt, the part played by the accused could be regarded as facilitating the fulfilment of the intention of the girl. That part, in our opinion, falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and is, therefore, not tantamount to "taking".
24. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimonies of PW3 and PW4, who are father and brother or accused and they have correctly identified the victim from photograph Ex. P1 and have deposed that the accused brought victim to their village. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:36:39 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 18 of 21 However, both the witnesses have not deposed anything about the date when the accused brought victim to their village and have also not deposed anything regarding taking or enticing the victim. Further PW5/mother of victim has deposed that the accused had not kidnapped her daughter. Thus, in the present case, it cannot be said that the accused did any act towards taking or enticing the victim and the act of allowing her to accompany him, as evident from testimony of PW3 and PW4, once she had voluntarily left the custody of her parents, does not fulfil the requirements of the offence.
HOSTILE WITNESSES
25. The main witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile in the present case. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
26. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. The mother of victim/PW5 and the victim/PW6 have stated that the complainant has filed the present case against ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:36:45 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 19 of 21 the accused as the victim had love marriage with the accused, without the consent of complainant. Furthermore, PW1 and PW2 are neighbours of accused and they have failed to identify the victim from the photograph Ex. P1. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused person with the commission of the offence.
27. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witnesses PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused person in the present case. As such, even if the testimony of all the other prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses is considered, the case of the prosecution could not be proved.
28. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
28.1. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of accused person, the prosecution was required to prove the offence under section 363 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The age of the victim at the time of the incident is not proved to be below the age of majority. The witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile, and their evidence on record is not enough to bring home the guilt of the accused. Further, the fact that there is no evidence regarding "taking" or "enticing" by the accused, has crumbled the whole case of the prosecution.
Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHALANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.01 16:36:52 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 20 of 21
29. Resultantly, the accused person namely, GUDDU KUMAR S/o Rajender Gosai is hereby found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 363 IPC.
29.1. Accused GUDDU KUMAR S/o Rajender Gosai is hereby ACQUITTED of the offence punishable under section 363 IPC.
29.2. However, accused GUDDU KUMAR S/o Rajender Gosai is already CONVICTED and sentenced separately of the offence punishable under section 174A IPC vide order dated 01.11.2025.
30. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 01.04.2026 in the presence of the accused person. The judgment contains 21 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.01 16:36:58 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
01.04.2026
Cr. Case No. 4556/2022 State vs. Guddu Kumar Page 21 of 21