Delhi District Court
State vs Akhlesh Kumar on 4 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01 NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. : Akhlesh Kumar FIR No : 612/2013 U/s : 363 IPC P.S. : Narela JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 5286864/2016 2. Date of commission of offence : 14.09.2013 3. Date of institution of the case : 05.12.2014 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Akhlesh Kumar s/o Sh. Girdhari Lal
6. Offense complained or proved : 363 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 17.04.2026
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 04.05.2026 State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 1/20
1. The accused is facing trial for offence u/s 363 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that is that on 14.09.2013, on receipt of DD No. 39-A, police officials reached J.J. Colony, Bawana, Delhi, where complainant Sh. Keshari Lal reported that his minor daughter Sharda, aged about 14 years, had gone missing from his house at about 1:30 PM and could not be traced despite search. On the basis of the said complaint, the present case FIR No. 612/2013, PS Narela, under Section 363 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up.
2. During investigation, efforts were made to trace the missing girl. Subsequently, on 15.09.2013, information was received that the missing girl had been located. The prosecutrix was recovered and produced before the police. She was medically examined at SRHC Hospital, Narela, and her MLC was prepared. Thereafter, she was produced before the learned Magistrate/CWC, where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. During the course of investigation, it also came to light that the accused Akhilesh Kumar S/o Sh. Giridhari Lal, resident of J.J. Colony, Bawana, was involved in taking away the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her father. The accused was accordingly apprehended and arrested and his personal search was conducted and necessary arrest and seizure memos were prepared. The age of the prosecutrix was found to be below 18 years, thereby making her a minor at the relevant time. The statements of witnesses were recorded State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 2/20 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other necessary steps of investigation were carried out .Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 363 IPC was filed before the Court against the accused.
3. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and on the basis of material on record, charge for offence U/s 363 IPC was framed against accused Akhlesh Kumar on 14.01.2015 The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
4. In order to prove allegations against accused, prosecution has examined fourteen prosecution witnesses.
5. Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It has been further argued that on the combined reading of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, offence u/s 363 IPC has been proved beyond doubt.
6. Per contra, Ld. LAC for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused and that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police officials at the behest of complainant. Arguing further, Ld. counsel has inter-alia submitted that the investigating agency has acted in hand in gloves with the complainant by falsely implicating the accused. It is also argued on behalf of accused that State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 3/20 the police has failed to join any independent public persons as witnesses during the course of recovery of the daughter of complainant from the custody of accused, which in itself reflects that the accused has been falsely implicated by the police. It is also argued that the complainant has also made considerable improvements in his version before the Court. It is further argued that due to the lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused be given the benefit of doubt and is therefore, entitled to be acquitted.
7. Prior to delving into the contentions raised by the prosecution and defence, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
(i) PW-1 Sh. Keshari Lal was the Complainant in the present case. He is also the father of prosecutrix and he deposed that on 14.09.2013, at about 1:30 PM, his minor daughter Sharda aged about 14 years went to the market to purchase vrat samagri but did not return. He further deposed that despite search, she could not be traced. He further deposed that he suspected that accused Akhilesh Kumar, who was known to him being a neighbour, had enticed and taken away his daughter. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police (Ex. PW1/A) and on the same day, while searching, he found his daughter along with the accused at the house of a relative of the accused at Dabri, Delhi. He further deposed that State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 4/20 he produced his daughter at PS Dabri, from where both the prosecutrix and accused were brought to PS Narela. He further deposed that recovery memo of the prosecutrix (Ex. PW1/B) was prepared. He further deposed that the prosecutrix was medically examined at SRHC Hospital and her statement was recorded before the Court. He identified the accused in Court.
He also proved arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused (Ex. PW1/C and PW1/D). In his cross-examination, admitted that he was not present at home at the time when his daughter left. He stated that he came to know about her missing through his wife. He admitted that he did not inquire from shopkeepers and that police did not record statements of neighbours in his presence. He admitted that the accused was his neighbour and known to him prior to the incident. He denied that his daughter had gone with the accused voluntarily or that he had lodged a false complaint to save family reputation. He also denied of having any knowledge of any love affair between the accused and prosecutrix. He also stated that the prosecutrix possessed Aadhaar card and school certificate but no MCD birth certificate. He denied that the prosecutrix was above 18 years at the time of incident.
(ii) PW-2 Smt. Manju is the mother of prosecutrix.
She corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 5/20 deposed that on 14.09.2013 at about 1:30 PM, her daughter Sharda went to the market but did not return. She further deposed that despite search, she could not be traced and suspicion was raised against the accused. She further deposed that later the prosecutrix and accused were found at Dabri and brought to the police station and that the prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement was recorded before the Court. She correctly identified the accused in Court. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not personally witness the recovery of her daughter. She stated that she did not know from whose custody the prosecutrix was recovered. She admitted that the accused resided in the same locality. She also admitted that it was within her knowledge that the prosecutrix and accused were in a relationship, though she objected to the same. She denied that a false case was lodged due to social pressure or that the prosecutrix had gone voluntarily with the accused.
(iii) PW-3 HC Bijender Singh deposed that on 14.09.2013, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Narela and at about 5:25 PM, he received rukka sent by ASI Ramesh Chand through Ct. Hem Raj, on the basis of which he registered the present FIR. He proved the computerized copy of FIR as Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW3/B. He stated that the FIR was registered in the normal course of official duties State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 6/20 and the computerized system does not allow alteration after entry.
(iv) PW-4 Ms. Sharda was the Prosecutrix/Victim.
She deposed that she knew the accused as he was her neighbour. She stated that since 2012, the accused had been pressurizing her to marry him and had threatened to commit suicide if she refused. She further deposed that on 14.09.2013, she went with the accused to Vikaspuri, where the sister of the accused resided. She made a call to her father, following which police arrived and both were taken to PS Narela. She further stated that the accused had asked her to take the blame upon herself and accordingly she stated before the police that she had gone with the accused of her own will. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she was in love with the accused and had an affair with him for about 3-4 years. She admitted that despite objection from her parents, she continued the relationship. She further admitted that on the date of incident, she went to meet the accused at a shop and thereafter, accompanied him to Vikaspuri. She admitted that in the year 2013, she was about 14 years of age. She denied that her statement before the Court was given voluntarily without any pressure from the accused and stated that she did not get an opportunity to disclose the pressure earlier. She denied of deposing falsely at the instance of her parents.
State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela
7/20
(v) PW-5 W/Ct. Kavita deposed that on
15.09.2013, she joined investigation along with IO/ASI Ramesh Chand. She accompanied the prosecutrix, her mother, and accused to SRHC Hospital for medical examination. She stated that the prosecutrix refused internal medical examination. She further deposed that thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to Rohini Courts where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on the next day, the prosecutrix was produced before CWC, which handed over her custody to her parents. In her cross-examination, stated that she did not remember DD entries and certain details regarding investigation but denied that she had not joined investigation or that she was deposing falsely.
(vi) PW-6 Ct. Hem Raj deposed that on 14.09.2013, he was posted at PS Narela and on receipt of DD No. 29-A, he along with IO ASI Ramesh Chand reached the spot i.e. J-2, JJ Colony, Bawana, where complainant Keshari Lal met them. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement and prepared rukka, which was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS Narela, got the FIR registered and returned to the spot and at that time, neither the prosecutrix nor the accused was present at the spot. He further deposed that IO tried to contact the accused on mobile phone but the same was found switched State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 8/20 off. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement. In his cross-examination, he stated that they left the PS at about 2:45 PM and reached the spot at about 3:15 PM. He admitted that some public persons were present but no neighbour was examined in his presence. He further stated that no age proof of the prosecutrix was provided to the IO by her parents in his presence. He denied that he did not join investigation or that he was deposing falsely.
(vii) PW-7 HC Rajinder deposed that on 14.09.2013, he was posted as HC at PS Narela and was part of a raiding team in JJ Colony. He further deposed that at about 11:40-11:45 PM, information was received that accused Akhilesh and a girl namely Sharda had been apprehended at PS Dabri. He further deposed that he along with lady constable went to PS Dabri and brought the prosecutrix and accused to PS Narela, where they were handed over to the IO. He correctly identified the accused in Court. . In his cross-examination, he stated that he reached PS Dabri at about 1:00 AM. He admitted that IO did not accompany him to PS Dabri and that no written investigation or handing over memo was prepared in his presence. He also stated that his signatures were not obtained on any document except his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He denied State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 9/20 that he did not join investigation or that he was deposing falsely.
(viii) PW-8 HC Sheela Devi deposed that on 14.09.2013, she was posted as Ct. at PS Narela and was part of the raiding staff. She further deposed that she received information that the prosecutrix and accused had been apprehended at PS Dabri and that she along with HC Rajbir went to PS Dabri where they met lady Ct. Renu and IO. She further deposed that thereafter, the accused, prosecutrix and her father were brought to PS Narela and handed over to IO/ASI Ramesh Chand. She further deposed that she handed over the custody of the prosecutrix to W/Ct. Kavita in the morning. . In her cross-examination, stated that she was on duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM and had left for PS Dabri around 12:30-1:00 AM. She admitted that no age proof of the prosecutrix was provided to IO in her presence. She denied that she did not visit PS Dabri or that she was deposing falsely.
(ix) PW-9 W/Ct. Renu deposed that on 14.09.2013, she was posted at PS Dabri and was on night duty. She further deposed that at about 8:30 PM, complainant Keshari Lal along with his daughter Sharda and accused Akhilesh came to PS Dabri. She further deposed that the complainant informed the IO that the accused had kidnapped his daughter. She further deposed that statement of the prosecutrix was State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 10/20 recorded by SI Man Mohan and that the prosecutrix was handed over to her custody and information was conveyed to PS Narela. She further deposed that at about 2:45 AM, HC Rajbir and W/Ct. Sheela came to PS Dabri and custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to them. In her cross-examination, stated that in her presence no age proof of the prosecutrix was handed over to IO. She also stated that no public witness accompanied the complainant or accused. She denied that no such proceedings took place or that she was deposing falsely.
(x) PW-10 L/Ct. Preeti deposed that on 14.09.2013, she was posted at PS Narela and had typed the computerized FIR No. 612/13 under directions of Duty Officer HC Bijender. She further deposed that after typing the FIR, she handed over its printout to HC Bijender and also issued a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex. PW10/A bearing her signatures.
(xi) PW-11 ASI Ramesh Chand was the IO in the present case. He deposed that on 14.09.2013, upon receipt of DD No. 29-A, he along with Ct. Hemraj reached J-2, JJ Colony, Bawana, where complainant Keshari Lal met him and informed that his minor daughter Sharda aged about 14 years had gone missing and suspicion was raised upon accused Akhilesh. He recorded the statement of complainant and prepared rukka (Ex. PW11/A) which was sent through Ct.
State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 11/20 Hemraj for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he searched for the accused at his residence but he was not found. He prepared the site plan (Ex. PW11/B) at the instance of the complainant and recorded statements of witnesses. He further deposed that later information was received that the accused along with prosecutrix had been apprehended at PS Dabri, whereupon he sent police officials to bring them to PS Narela. Recovery memo of prosecutrix (already Ex. PW1/B) was prepared. He further deposed that on 15.09.2013, he produced the prosecutrix before the Ld. MM where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He further deposed that he also collected age proof from school and got the prosecutrix medically examined at SRHC Hospital. He further deposed that the accused was initially released on pabandinama (Ex. PW11/C) and later on 18.10.2013, he formally arrested the accused and prepared arrest memo and personal search memo (Ex. PW1/C & PW1/D) and that after completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the Court. He correctly identified the accused in Court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not record statement of public witnesses. He stated that he verified age of prosecutrix from school record which reflected her age as about 14 years. He admitted that during investigation it came to light that State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 12/20 prosecutrix and accused were in a relationship. He denied that he conducted false investigation or that documents were prepared falsely.
(xii) PW-12 SI Manmohan deposed that on 14.09.2013, while posted at PS Dabri, complainant Keshari Lal along with prosecutrix and accused came to the police station at about 8:30 PM. He stated that complainant informed that accused had kidnapped his daughter. He further deposed he recorded the statement of prosecutrix and informed PS Narela and that he prosecutrix was kept in the custody of W/Ct. Renu. He further deposed on 15.09.2013 at about 2:45 AM, police officials from PS Narela came and took custody of prosecutrix and accused. . In his cross-examination, he denied that accused and prosecutrix had come voluntarily. He stated that both were handed over to PS Narela officials and that the father of the prosecutrix was present at the time of handing over.
(xiii) PW-13 Sh. Yogesh Kumar deposed that he brought the school record pertaining to the prosecutrix Sharda. He proved the admission form and affidavit (Ex. P-1 & Ex. P-2) and the school record (Ex. P-3), which reflected the date of birth and age of the prosecutrix as recorded in school documents. He stated that these documents were maintained in the regular course of school record. . In his cross- examination, he stated that there was no other State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 13/20 document available in school record regarding age of the prosecutrix.
(xiv) PW-14 Nishat Anjum Protection Officer, CWC, deposed that she was deputed to prove the CWC order dated 16.09.2013, which is Ex. PW14/A. She stated that the prosecutrix was produced before the Child Welfare Committee in connection with the present case and that after counselling, the custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to her family.
This is the entire evidence on case record.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
7. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case.
Accused further opted not to lead evidence in his defence, hence, DE was closed.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE:
8. Before delving in to the appreciation of evidences led by prosecution so as to ascertain veracity of allegations levelled against the accused, let us briefly discuss the position of law with respect to Section 363 IPC.
State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 14/20 Section 361 IPC deals with the offence of kidnapping through lawful guardianship. This offence is committed if a minor or a person of unsound mind is taken out from the custody of lawful guardianship without the consent of such guardian. It reads as under;
Section 361: Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.- Whoever takes or entices any minor under 1sixteen] 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 "awful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
This section has four essentials:
i. Taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind.
ii. Such minor must be under 16 years of age, if a male, or under 18 years of age, if a female. iii. The taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind.
iv. Such taking or enticing must be without a consent of such guardian.
The offence of kidnapping is punishable u/s 363 IPC with an imprisonment of either description which may extent to 07 years and fine. It reads as under:
State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 15/20 "Punishment for kidnapping.-Whoever kidnaps any person from 1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
9. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused has been indicted for the offence u/s 363 IPC.
10. For the sake of repetition, it is again reiterated that the sum and substance of the allegations as levelled against accused is that on 14.09.2013 at about 01:30 PM at JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi, accused Akhlesh Kumar kidnapped the minor daughter of complainant namely, Sharda who was around 14 Years old at that time, out of keeping of the lawful guardianship of the complainant without the consent of the complainant, thereby constituting offence U/s 363 IPC.
11. As stated earlier, in order to establish offence of kidnapping punishable U/s 363 IPC, the existence of four essential conditions as mentioned U/s 361 IPC are required to be established by the prosecution. The conditions as mentioned U/s 361 IPC shall be discussed hereinafter separately alongwith the evidences led by the prosecution to establish the said conditions.
State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 16/20
12. The first and fore most important condition for constituting offence of kidnapping is that the person so kidnapped must be a minor or a person of unsound mind. The provisions of Section 361 IPC incorporates that the person so kidnapped must be under 16 years of age, if he is a male or under 18 years of age, if a female. he first aspect which requires determination is the age of the prosecutrix. PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically deposed that their daughter was about 14 years of age at the time of incident. The prosecution has also relied upon the school record of victim, which was collected during investigation and same was proved by PW-13, which reflects the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 08.09.1999, making her approximately 14 years of age at the time of the incident. Besides, the PW-2 (victim herself) during her deposition has stated that she was around 14 year old on the day of incident in question. Even though certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the defence with respect to school record of the victim (PW-4), however, no cogent evidence has been led to discredit the school record. The said documentary evidence has remained unchallenged and unrebutted during the course of trial. In view of the settled legal position, the school record is to be given due weightage. Therefore, this court finds no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. Accordingly, it stands duly proved that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age at the time of incident and hence, a minor. Thus, the first essential ingredient stands satisfied.
13. The second condition which is required to be fulfilled for bringing home the guilt of an accused for an offence punishable U/s 363 IPC is that the victim must be taken away or enticed by State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 17/20 the accused. In this regard, the testimony of the prosecutrix assumes crucial importance. A careful reading of her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. reveals that she had categorically stated that she knew the accused for about one year, that she used to talk to him on the phone, that she had called him on the day of the incident, and that she had left her house on her own pretext and accompanied the accused voluntarily. She further stated that she had gone with the accused of her own free will and that no wrongful act had been committed with her and that she did not want any action against the accused. Even in her deposition before the Court, she admitted that she was in a relationship with the accused for the last 3-4 years and had voluntarily gone with him. Though she made certain allegations regarding pressure or threat during her testimony, the same are not supported by her earlier statements and appear to be material improvements. It is well settled that in cases of alleged kidnapping from lawful guardianship, the crucial question is whether the accused had actively taken or enticed the minor. Where the minor herself voluntarily leaves her home and accompanies the accused without any inducement, force or active role attributable to the accused, the essential ingredient of the offence is not made out. In the present case, the material on record clearly indicates that the prosecutrix herself initiated contact with the accused, called him, and left her house on her own. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused exercised any inducement, coercion or allurement so as to bring the case within the ambit of "taking" or "enticement". Therefore, the aforesaid second condition seems to be not satisfied in the present case so as to hold the accused liable for the alleged offence.
State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 18/20
14. Whereas, in order to constitute the offence of kidnapping, it was also incumbent upon the prosecution to satisfy the third essential condition i.e the minor girl Sharda was taken out or enticed from the lawful guardianship without the consent of the guardian of said child. However, as the discussion above clearly suggests prosecution has failed to establish the existence of act of taking away or enticement of minor girl Sharda by the accused, therefore, there lies no question of delving into discussion that she was taken away by the accused from any lawful guardianship without the consent of the guardian of the child or not. Further, the investigation suffers from certain deficiencies. Admittedly, no public witness was joined despite their availability and even no contemporaneous age proof was collected at the initial stage of investigation. The recovery of the prosecutrix was not effected from any suspicious or incriminating circumstances but from the police station itself. These aspects, though not by themselves fatal, do assume significance when the core of the prosecution case itself is doubtful. Additionally, material contradictions between the earlier statements of the prosecutrix and her testimony before the Court further weaken the prosecution case and create reasonable doubt. The possibility of embellishment or improvement cannot be ruled out.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that although the prosecutrix was a minor, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had taken or enticed her out of the lawful guardianship of her parents. The evidence on record rather indicates that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the accused owing to a pre-existing relationship. The essential State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 19/20 ingredients of the offence under Section 363 IPC are thus not satisfied.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused Akhlesh Kumar for the offence u/s 363 IPC and holds him not guilty for said offence. The accused Akhlesh Kumar is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 363 IPC.
Announced in open Court on 04.05.2026.
Digitally signed by RISHABHRISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2026.05.04 16:05:49 +0530 (Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi 04.05.2026 State Vs. Akhlesh Kumar FIR No. 612/2013 PS Narela 20/20