Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil on 4 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PADMA LADOL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. 261/2022
PS Inderpuri
U/S : 363/365 IPC, 1860
State V/s Sunil
Cr.C No. 6250/2022
CNR No. DLND020143652022
Date of Institution 27.06.2022
Complainant Sh. Md. Yusuf
S/o Sh. Md. Shahid
R/o B-596, 1st Floor, JJ Colony,
Inderpuri, Delhi
Name, parentage and address of the Sunil
accused S/o Sh. Ramavtar
R/o Village Badulpur Bhawali, P.S
Roduali District Ayodhya Uttar
Pradesh.
Offence complained off Section 363/365 Indian Penal Code
Plea of Accused Not Guilty
Final Order Convicted u/s. 363 IPC and
Acquitted of offence u/s. 365 IPC
Date of Judgment 04.04.2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Ms. Shruti Singhal, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. N.K Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIR No. 261/22
State Vs. Sunil Page 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO, Police Station Inderpuri has presented this charge-sheet against above named accused for initiation of trial U/s 363/365 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the minor son (around 6 years old) of complainant regularly used to go out on the streets to play and come back home by 4-5 PM, however, on 13.05.2022, he went out to play at around 10 AM but did not return even by 6 PM. The complainant tried to search his minor son at his level, however, to no avail. Complainant suspected that some unknown person had enticed and taken away his son. On 14.05.2022, the minor child was found in the house of the accused Sunil. Based on the complaint of the father of minor child, present FIR was registered and investigation ensued. Medical examination of minor child conducted vide MLC No. E-97028/22. During further investigation, statement of minor child u/s. 164 Cr.PC was also recorded and witnesses were examined. Minor child was then produced before Child Welfare Committee, thereafter handed over to his father/complainant. On completion of investigation, final report was presented for trial against accused Sunil.
COGNIZANCE, COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 207 CRPC AND PLEA OF ACCUSED
3. After presentation of charge-sheet, accused was summoned by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused u/s. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"). Thereafter, FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 2 of 17 charge u/s. 363/365 IPC was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 28.11.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses and relied upon following evidence -
Witness exhibiting Identification Description
PW-1 Sh. Mohd. Yusuf Ex. PW-1/A Statement of the
complainant
PW-2 Sama Khatoon Mark X Statement u/s. 161
CrPC of PW-2
PW-3 HC Vishvendra Ex. PW-3/A Disclosure statement of
accused
Ex. PW-3/B Arrest Memo of
accused
Ex. PW-3/C Personal Search Memo
of accused
PW-4 IO/ASI Laxman Ex. PW-4/A Rukka
Singh
Ex. PW-4/B Site Plan
Ex. PW-4/C Recovery Memo of
minor child
Ex. PW-4/D Chargesheet
5. PW-1 Sh. Mohd. Yusuf (father of minor child) deposed that he does not remember the exact date and time when his children, two daughters and one son were playing and at what time his son, namely, Mohd. Faiz aged about 6-7 years was kidnapped by the accused Sunil Kumar. He further deposed that accused Sunil Kumar took his son Mohd. Faiz to his village. That the accused was working with his sister-in-law (sali) and his son used to play at his sister-in-
FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 3 of 17law's place at times. PW-1 further deposed that on the day of incident his son did not go to school and he went to his sister-in-law's place for playing. Since then, his child was missing. He also deposed that on the next day he went for the registration of FIR. Meanwhile, accused Sunil Kumar called him over his sister- in-law's phone that his child was in his possession. PW-1 also deposed that prior to registration of FIR, he was already in search of his child and he enquired from everyone regarding the whereabouts of his child. That he was in confusion that his child might be playing at his relative's place but, when he did not return to home by evening then, he started searching for his child but in vain. Then, he went to PS to make a complaint about the same. PW-1 further deposed that the caller apprised his sister-in-law over phone regarding his son and afterwards his sister-in-law informed him about the same. That he had questioned regarding the identification of his child as to what color clothes was his son wearing at that time and he also told them that his son was wearing yellow colored t-shirt, jeans and hawayi chappal. That he sent the photograph of his son over phone of accused Sunil and thereafter, accused Sunil Kumar correctly identified his son and replied that his child was with him. At that time he was present in the PS and his sister-in-law/Sali informed him about the same over phone. Police Officials recorded his statement at Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he along with Police Officials reached the village of the accused. Thereafter, the accused Sunil Kumar was arrested from his residence/village and his child was also present and was sleeping at that time as it was 05:00 AM in the morning. The arrest of the accused Sunil Kumar was made in his presence and his child was handed over to him. He further stated that after coming back, the statement of his child was also recorded before Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.PC. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in the Court.
In his cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he had gone to the native place of the accused. That he had no monetary transaction with the FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 4 of 17 accused at any time. That he had no animosity with the accused at any time. PW- 1 admitted that that when he went to the house of the accused to get his son, his son was in good condition. He further admitted that his son told him that he was not harassed by the accused in any manner and he was provided food on time by the accused. That the accused and his son both had come back to Delhi with them. His son came back home with him from the PS. PW-1 has conceded that no offence was committed with his child by the accused. He further stated that he cannot say why the accused took his son with him without his consent.
6. PW-2 Sama Khatoon deposed that in the year 2022, she was working at Metro Hospital, Inderpuri, New Delhi. At that time, the accused was working in the same hospital. She further deposed that gradually she came close to him. On 13.05.2022, she came to know that her nephew namely Ayaan, S/o Mohd. Yusuf was kidnapped by someone. The same fact was also informed to her by friend of her nephew. On the same day at evening she received a call from accused and they had some conversation. On suspicion she again called on the same number which was received by another person. On asking, the said person told her that accused Sunil was carrying a male child aged around 8 years. Thereafter, she went to PS Inderpuri and informed all the facts to the police officials and also shared mobile number of the accused. In the night, accused called her and started talking. On the next day, the police had recovered the child from the house of accused and brought to Delhi and thereafter the child was collected by them. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in Court.
In her cross-examination, she deposed that she knows the accused from 2021 as he was working in the same hospital where she was working. That her husband expired during covid period. She further deposed that during service in the hospital she did not receive any money from the accused Sunil Kumar. Witness was then confronted with her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 5 of 17 Mark X from point A to A1 where it is so recorded. PW-2 also deposed that in the year 2021, she was living in Inderpuri and accused was living in Pandav Nagar. That the accused used to visit her rented room in Inderpuri. PW-3 admitted that the accused was close to her and that accused was also familiar with the child who was kidnapped by him.
7. PW-3 HC Vishvendra Singh deposed that on14.05.2022, he was posted as Constable at PS Inderpuri and on that day he joined investigation in the present case with IO /ASI Laxman Singh. During investigation of case, he along with IO and other two police officials left for Ayodhya, U.P in search of accused Sunil Kumar. The accused Sunil Kumar was found present at his house along with one male child, aged around 6 years of fair complexion. Thereafter, IO interrogated accused Sunil and recorded his disclosure statement at ExPW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, accused was arrested in the present case and IO prepared arrest memo and personal search memo at ExPW3/B & ExPW3/C respectively, both bearing his signatures at point A respectively. PW3 further deposed that thereafter on same day he and other police officials along with accused and minor child came to Delhi and information regarding recovery of child was given to parents of child by the IO. He further stated that medical examination of the accused was got conducted by the IO. Accused present in the court was correctly identified by the witness.
In his crossexamination, PW3 deposed that when the child was recovered from the house of accused, IO personally interrogated the child.
8. PW-4 IO/ASI Laxman Singh deposed that on 14.05.2022, he was posted as ASI at PS Inderpuri. At around 02:00 P.M, complainant namely Mohd. Yusuf had come to the PS and met him. The complainant had informed that his child was kidnapped by some unknown persons. Thereafter, he recorded his statement. On the basis of his statement, he prepared the rukka, which is at Ex- PW4/A bearing his signatures at point A and got the FIR registered. Before FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 6 of 17 registration of FIR, he also made endorsement on the rukka at point B. Thereafter he went to the place of incident in question, where site plan [Ex- PW4/B] was prepared by him at the instance of complainant. PW-4 further deposed that on the same day at around 04:00 PM complainant along with his sister in law Sama Khatoon had come to PS and informed that the child in question was kidnapped by one Sunil who was working in Metro hospital, Pandav Nagar along with Sama Khatoon. Thereafter, supplementary statement of complainant was recorded by him. At that time he had also recorded statement of Sama Khatoon. The fact of the present case was then informed to Sr. Officer, who directed him to conduct raid at the address of accused. Thereafter at around 06:00 P.M, he along with other police officials and complainant left for village Badal Pur, PS Radoli, District Faizabad, U.P in a private car bearing no. DL9CAF0374 and reached PS Radoli at around 04:25 A.M dated 15.05.2022. The information regarding the present case was given to concerned PS vide DD No. 5 dated 15.05.2022 [Mark A]. Thereafter, he along with all police officials, complainant and one local police visited the house of accused. At his house, accused was found along with child. The child after seeing his father identified him. At that time accused was also interrogated in the present case. Thereafter, he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused [Ex-PW3/A] bearing his signatures at point B. Accused was arrested in the present case by him and he had prepared his arrest memo and personal search memo, at Ex-PW3/B and Ex-PW3/C respectively. Recovery memo of the child was also prepared by him at Ex-PW4/C bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, all the police officials along with complainant, child and accused returned to Delhi through the same vehicle. Medical examination of the accused was also got conducted as per rules. On the same day, counselling of the male child was also conducted through the concerned staff of CWC cell. Statement of the child u/s 164 Cr.PC was also got recorded. Thereafter, accused was produced FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 7 of 17 before the concerned court and was sent to JC for two days. Thereafter, child was handed over to his parents and the case property i.e. the mobile phone and one labour card was deposited in the maalkhana of the PS. During investigation of case, statement of child recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC was collected and report of the CWC committee was also collected. During investigation of the case, statement of the witnesses were recorded. After that chargesheet was prepared in the present case and was filed before the court through SHO concerned. Accused was correctly identified by the witness in Court.
In his cross-examination, PW-4 has deposed that at around 05:00 A.M on 15.05.2022, he along with other police officials and complainant reached at the house of the accused. On interrogation with child, he informed that accused Sunil brought him to his village by bus. That the child also informed him that the accused firstly gave him a Kulfi and thereafter, he brought him to his village.
Admission/ denial u/s. 294 CrPC and statement of accused u/s. 313 r/w 281 CrPC
9. Accused Sunil was called under Section 294 Cr.PC wherein he admitted the genuineness of the statement of FIR no. 261/2022 and DD No. 59A and 58A dated 14.05.2022 and 15.05.2022.
10. The statement of accused under Section 313 r/w 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 23.02.2024, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence. He submitted that he was working in the same hospital as PW-2/Sama Khatoon. PW-2 is his family relative and she had borrowed some money from him, however, when he asked her to return the money, she started ignoring. Accused has further stated that when he was going to his home, nephew of PW-2 namely FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 8 of 17 Ayan came along with him on his own. That PW-2 has implicated him in a false case. Accused further pleaded innocent, however, chose not to lead DE.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by examining all the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. Prosecution has relied on the testimony of complainant/father of minor child PW1 as well as PW2/sister-in-law of PW-1 to prove the ingredients of the provisions and to show that there is nothing to suggest otherwise in the present case than the taking or enticing the minor out of the lawful guardianship of his father without his consent. Accordingly, conviction of accused was prayed.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts. Defence argued that the minor son came with the accused on his own accord as they were well known to each other and the child was never enticed or taken away by the accused. It is also argued that the minor child never took the name of accused in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC. It is further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case by PW-2 in order to avoid the repayment of her loan to accused. Hence, case is liable to be dismissed and accused deserves to be acquitted of the present offence.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
13. After giving anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perusing the case file meticulously, this court is of the opinion that at the heart of the matter is a determination as to whether the accused took or enticed the victim/ minor out of the keeping of his lawful guardian, without the consent of such guardian.
FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 9 of 17FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
14. At the outset, it would be beneficial to extract the relevant part of Sections 361 of IPC which define 'Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship'. The provision read as follows:
"361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.--Whoever takes or entices any minor under [sixteen] years of age if a male, or under [eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Explanation.--The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
Word 'Enticing' is defined in Chambers Twenty First Century Dictionary as to 'tempt or persuade by arousing hopes or desire by promising a reward. In Merriam Webster Dictionary 'enticement' is defined as to 'to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire'. Perusal of the provision shows that it is necessary that there be an act of enticing or taking, in addition to establishing the child's minority (being sixteen for boys and eighteen for girls) and care/keep of a lawful guardian. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thakorlal D Vadgama v. State of Gujarat, (1973) 2 SCC 413 has held that:
"The expression used in Section 361 I.P.C. is "whoever takes or entices any minor". The word "takes" does not necessarily connote taking by force and it is not confined only to use of force, actual or constructive. This word merely means, "to cause to go," "to escort"
or "to get into possession". No doubt it does mean physical taking, but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word "entice" seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take many forms, FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 10 of 17 difficult to visualise and describe exhaustively; some of them may be quite subtle, depending for their success on the mental state of the person at the time when the inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time, in achieving its ultimate purposes of successful inducement. The two words "takes" and "entices", as used in Section 361 I.P.C. are in our opinion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361 I.P.C."
However, mere recovery of a missing minor from the custody of a stranger would not ipso-facto establish the offence of kidnapping. Thus, where the prosecution fails to prove that the incident of removal was committed by or at the instigation of the accused, it would be nearly impossible to bring the guilt home as happened in the cases of King Emperor v. Gokaran AIR 1921 Oudh 226 and Emperor v. Abdur Rahman AIR 1916 All 210.
15. The intent behind this provision has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash v. State of Haryana (2004) 1 SCC 339 in the following words:
The object of this section seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards. The gravamen of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the ages specified in this FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 11 of 17 section, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian. The words "takes or entices any minor............ out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor" in Section 361, are significant. The use of the word "Keeping" in the context connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control; further the guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with the independence of action and movement in the minor, the guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity arises. On plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial. it is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its purview. Nor is it necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud. Persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the Section.
16. Adverting to the facts of the present case in view of the above principles of law:
I. Identity of accused:
There is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused. It is not disputed that accused and victim were known to each other through PW-2 who is the aunt (mausi) of the minor child.
II. Age of the victim:
There is no dispute as to the age of the victim. As per the prosecution, the age of the victim child was around 6 years as on the date of incident and he was studying in 2nd class i.e. he was a minor at the time of commission of the alleged FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 12 of 17 offence of kidnapping. The age has not been disputed by the accused at any stage of trial. Thus, it is proved that the victim was a minor on the date of incident.
17. The next and the only question now to be decided is whether the child was enticed or taken from the keeping of his lawful guardian, without the consent of such guardian. It is noteworthy that there is no dispute with regard to recovery of the victim from the house of accused in his village. In fact, accused has admitted that the child was with him till his recovery from his home. In his defence, he has only stated that the child came along with him on his own accord as he was known to him and that he did not entice the child to come with him. As seen above, the provision u/s. 361 IPC uses the terminologies 'takes or entices any minor' and there is no scope or requirement of intention on the part of accused to attract the wrath of this provision. If it is proved that a minor is either taken or enticed out of the keeping of his/her lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian, then the offence of kidnapping is established. In the case in hand, the minor child was at the house of PW-2 on the date of incident. So, he was under the direct keeping of his aunt/mausi (PW-2) and under extended/indirect keeping of his father/PW-1 at the time of incident. He had gone outside to play but when he did not return home at usual evening hours, the suspicion arose. It is also not the defence that the accused took the child with him with the consent of PW-1 or PW-2. It is a settled law as already discussed above that the consent of a minor is wholly immaterial, hence, the defence that the child came with him to his village on his own will holds no water. Defence has also made an attempt to establish that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case by PW-2 in order to avoid the payment of her debts to the accused. However, same is only a bald averment and not supported by any prove, whatsoever. Even otherwise, the accused has conceded that he himself took the child to his village in a bus. Hence, in such a scenario, the possibility of FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 13 of 17 being implicated in a false case is very bleak. Defence has also adverted to another plea that the child never took the name of accused in his statement u/s. 164 CrPC. This argument is also devoid of merits because it is trite law that statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC is not a substantive evidence and is only a corroborative piece of evidence. Even otherwise, the child has stated in his statement u/s. 164 Cr.PC that "vo meri mausi ka dost tha...vo mujhe le gaya tha apne gaon mein....bus mein". There is a sufficient indication in the present facts and circumstances that the child was talking about none other than the accused. In view of the same, this argument of accused also fails being devoid of merits. Further, there is nothing adverse forthcoming in the cross-examination of either PW-1 or PW-2 to shake their credit. They have successfully stood the test of cross-examination. Prosecution has successfully proved that the accused took away the minor child to his village without consent of his lawful guardians.
18. In view of the above finding, there is nothing but to hold that all the ingredients u/s. 361 IPC are complete and the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance is also placed on Willian Stephen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 607/2024 decided on 21.02.2024 on similar facts wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"13. We find from the cross-examination of the child-PW-2 that there is hardly any challenge to the main incident. In fact, a suggestion was given to him that the men who had taken him in the car are the ones who were acquaintance with him and his father. This is the defence as reflected from the cross-examination.
14. It is not brought on record by the accused that there was a prior enmity or animosity between the parents of the victim child and the accused. There was no reason for the father of the victim to falsely implicate the appellants and tutor the child to depose against them.FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 14 of 17
Therefore, the case sought to be made out that the child was tutored by his father was not rightly accepted by the Courts below. Therefore, it can be said that the 'kidnapping' within the meaning of Section 361 of IPC was established by the prosecution. Hence, the appellants are guilty of the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC."
19. Now coming to the charge u/s. Section 365 IPC. Section 365 deals with kidnapping or Abducting with Intent Secretly and Wrongfully to Confine Person and reads as:
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.
The important ingredient under this provision is the intention of the accused to secretly and wrongfully confine a person. In the present case, there is no dispute as to confinement of the minor child at his home in village. The only point which needs determination is the intention on the part of accused to secretly and wrongfully confine the minor child at his home. Prosecution has not been able to prove the intention of the accused to wrongfully and secretly confine the minor. In fact, as per PW-1, the accused himself had given a phone call to his sister-in- law to inform that his minor son is with him. As per PW-2, accused had telephoned her however he did not tell her that the minor is with him. She herself got suspicious after talking to him and called back on the phone number of accused. Some one else answered the phone call who informed her that accused has brought a child with him. Prosecution has not called the said person as a witness. The record reveals that the complainant came to know about the presence of his son with accused in his village from a phone call received by FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 15 of 17 PW-2 from the accused himself. There is no other means from where the complainant came to know about the whereabouts of his minor son. If the accused had intention to wrongfully and secretly confined the minor child, he would not have called PW-2 on her phone. There is no evidence on record to establish the intention of accused in this regard. Even otherwise, it is trite law that when two views are possible, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of accused. In view of the same, no intention of accused can be ascertained to secretly and wrongfully confining the minor child.
20. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
ii. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
iii. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.FIR No. 261/22 State Vs. Sunil Page 16 of 17
In the present case, the chain of offence with regard to Sec. 363 IPC is complete, however, chain is incomplete with regard to offence u/s. 365 IPC. Hence, it is successfully established that the minor child was taken by the accused to his village out of the keeping of his lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian. There is no alternative possible outcome of the acts of the accused but to hold that he is liable of the offence u/s. 363 IPC. However, accused cannot be held liable u/s. 365 IPC for the aforesaid reasons.
FINAL ORDER
21.Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge against the accused qua offence punishable u/s. 363 IPC, however, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt qua offence punishable u/s. 365 IPC. Accordingly, accused Sunil S/o Sh. Ramavtar is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under Section 363 however he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (PADMA LADOL)
TODAY ON 4th APRIL, 2024 MM-04, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT/PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 261/22
State Vs. Sunil Page 17 of 17