Delhi District Court
State vs Shahnawaj on 22 December, 2025
CR Cases 2270/2017
IN THE COURT OF MR. CHATINDER SINGH, JMFC-04, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. : 276/2016
U/s : 365/342 IPC
P.S. : Sangam Vihar
State Vs. Shahnawaj
a) ID. No. of the Case :DLST020112012017
b) Name & address of the : Sh. Banwari Lal S/o Sh. Biri Singh
complainant R/o H. No.198. Gali No.18, K-1st, Sangam Vihar,
Delhi.
c) Name & address of : Shahnawaj S/o Sh. Mohd. Irfan
Accused R/o Town Dharampur, Near Dhampur,
Nagina Chauraha, PS Kotwali, Distt. Bijnor,
UP.
d) Date of Commission of : 06.05.2016
offence
e) Offence complained of : 363/342 IPC
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) Final Order : Acquitted
FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 1 of 15
CR Cases 2270/2017
Date of Institution : 02.06.2017
Final arguments heard on : 15.09.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 22.12.2025
1.Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 365/342 IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 06.05.2016 at about 08:00 AM from 198/18/K-1, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Sangam Vihar, the accused Shahnawaj kidnapped the son namely Gaurav of the complainant with the intention of secretly and wrongfully confining him and the said child was secretly and wrongfully confined by you at your place of your residence, where he was recovered by the police and thereby committed an offence under Section 365/342 IPC. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Copy of the charge-sheet and other annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity 'CrPC') were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under Section 365/342 IPC was framed against him vide order of this Court dated 21.10.2021 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
a. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses namely (1) Sh. Banwari; (2) Sh. Gaurav; (3) FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 2 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 Retd. SI Shabbir Ahmad; (4) ASI Suresh Chand and (5) HC SI Rajesh Kumar.
b. Furthermore, the accused under Section 294 CrPC had also admitted the registration of FIR bearing number 276/2016, PS Sangam Vihar, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter for brevity 'IEA'), GD No. 32B dated 07.05.2016 and statement under Section 164 CrPC of victim Gaurav recorded by Ld. MM on 09.05.2016.
4. PW-1 Sh. Banwari deposed that the incident pertains to 4-5 years back, he further deposed that he had given a complaint to Police that his son namely Gaurav was kidnapped, who was aged about 12 years, by the accused Shahnawaz and his family members and was put on a space above the wall (taand). He further deposed that his son was recovered on the next day, as he was beard shouting for help by the other persons of the locality including the neighbourers but he had not seen any person carrying away his son. He further deposed that his complaint given to police is Ex. PW- 1/A. During cross-examination on behalf of accused by Sh. M.A. Hussain, the witness admitted that he had not seen any person who has kidnapped and kept his son over the taand. He further deposed that police had not asked him about the persons who had heard the cry of his son, police had not conducted any proceedings at the spot. The witness again said, the Police had not initiated any action against the landlord of the property where from my son was recovered. The witness denied that he has given FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 3 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 the false complaint against the accused in the present case. The witness further denied that the accused has been falsely implicated by him in the present case.
5. PW-2 Sh. Gaurav deposed that the incident with regard to the present case had occurred m 06.05.2016. He further deposed that on that day, he along with the accused Shahnawaj and his friend Deepak went for roaming around at Nehru Place. He further deposed that on the way back, Deepak gone to his house and Shahnawaj took him to his house and thereafter, he gave him food. He further deposed that after finishing the said food, he became unconcious. He further deposed that he became concious and he found himself locked inside the said house and same was locked from outside. He further deposed that accused Shanawaj was also not found in the sand house. He further deposed that he seeked for help, at that time, one boy came at the spot and thereafter, he called his mother. He further deposed that she called his parents to the spot and thereafter they opened the lock and thereafter, he was released from the said house. He further deposed that his father gave a complaint to the police in this regard which was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/A. The witness further deposed that his separate statement got recorded by Ld. MM and same was exhibited as Ex. PW-2/B. He further deposed that his medical examination was also got conducted by the police, police also prepared the plan at his instance. He further deposed that the police arrested the accused Shahnawaj vide arrest memo which Ex.PW2/C. The witness corretly identified the accused Shahnawaj who was present in the court today.
FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 4 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017During cross-examination on behalf of the accused by Sh. M.A Hussain, he witness further deposed that he is about 21 years old. He further deposed that he does not know whether any documents pertaining in his date of birth was given to the police or not. The witness accepted that he knew accused Shahnawaj prior to the incident. The witness further accepted that police did not made any inquiry from the boy and his mother who had seen him at the spot. The witness further accepted that he and acused had taken food together but separately (in the separate plates) in the said huose. The witness denied that he was major at the time of incident. The witness further accepted that the place of the incident is a thickly populated area and there are many houses with the vicinity. The witness denied that he did not become unconscious after taking food. He further denied that he slept after having food. The witness further denied that no site plan was prepared at his instance. The witness further denied that the proceedings have taken place at the PS and police had taken his signature on the blank papers. He further deposed that even today his relationship with the accused is cordial.
6. PW-3 Sh. Shabbir Ahmad deposed that on 07.05.2016 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as SI, on that day, after receiving DD No. 32.0, he along with Ct. Dharmender reached H. No 198/18, K-1st, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi where they met complainant namely Banwari and his statement was recorded with regard to kidnapping of tus son namely Gaurav. He further deposed that statement of the complainant is already Ex.PWI/A. He further deposed that he prepared rukka which is Ex PW3/A and he gave the rukka to Ct. Dharmender for registration of FIR, Ct. Dharmender went to PS and got the FIR registered and came back and handed over the original rukka and FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 5 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 copy of FIR to him. He further deposed that they searched for the accused and the victim however they could not be traced out. He further deposed that on 09.05.2016, after receiving information, they traced out the victim Gaurav from the house of accused Shahnawaj. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan of the spot of recovery, which is Ex. PW3/B. He furhter deposed that accused Shahnawaj was apprehended from his house and was brought to PS and thereafter, he was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex PW2/C. He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused, same is Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that he got conducted the medical examination of victim Gaurav. He further deposed that the accused was released on personal bond. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement of the victims u/s 164 of CrPC. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the witnesses, thereafter, he got retired and the file was handed over in MHC(R). The witness correctly identified the accused Shahnawaj who was present in the Court.
During cross examination on behalf of accused by Sh. Sami Ahmad, he deposed that he did not make any separate DD entry with regard to our departure from the PS. He further deposed that the place of the incident is a residential area, he had orally requested 3-4 neighbours to join the investigation however nobody agreed to join and he did not serve any notice to them on their refusal. He further deposed that he do not remember the exact time when he prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Dharmender. He further deposed that before apprehending the accused, he had requested 3-4 public persons to join the police party however nobody agreed. The witness denied that the accused was apprehended from his FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 6 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 house and he was falsely implicated in the present case. The witness further denied that all the written documents were prepared at the PS. The witness further denied that he is deposing falsely.
7. PW4, ASI Suresh Chand deposed that on 09.05.2016 he was posted at PS Sangam Vihar as Ct. He further deposed that on that day he joined the investigation of the present case along with the IO SI Shabbir Ahmad. He further deposed that they reached at house of accused Shahnawaj from where he was apprehended and victim Gaurav was also recovered. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan of the spot of recovery, same is already Ex. PW3/B. He further deposed that the accused was brought to the PS and he was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW2/C. He further deposed that IO also recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is already Ex.PW3/C. He further deposed that thereafter, IO recorded his statement. Accused Shahnawaj was correctly identified by the witness.
During cross examination on behalf of accused by LAC, the witness deposed that they did not make any DD entry with regard to our departure from the PS. He further deposed that no public witnesses were joined by the IO at the time of recovery of the victim. He further deposed that IO did not note down the name of any public witness nor he served any notice to them. He denied that the accused was apprehended from his house, all the written documents were prepared at the PS. The witness lastly denied that he is deposing falsely.
8. PW-5 SI Rajesh deposed that on 02.02.2017, he was marked the further investigation of the case by the concerned SHO as the previous IO FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 7 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 had retired. He futher deposed that he collected the police file from MHC R and upon going through the file, he realized that no investigation is pending. He further deposed that thereafter, as the charge sheet was completed and no investigation was pending, he filed the charge sheet before the hon'ble court for adjudication.
PW-5 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
9. The PE was closed on 28.11.2024 and statement of accused was recorded on 06.12.2024 wherein the accused pleaded innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not lead DE.
10. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record. Ld. Counsel has submitted that no public person was made witness by the IO despite the presence of public persons at and around the place of occurrence. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that no one actually seen victim being abducted by accused. Further, the prosecution has failed to examine the boy and his mother who were present at the spot when the victim was rescued with the help of police. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that no departure entry by the PW-3 and PW-4 has been brought on record to show their movement or departure from the PS to the spot.
11. Per contra, Ld. APP for the State has submitted that there is sufficient material on record to convict accused Shahnawaj under Section 352/365 IPC as victim Gaurav was taken away from the custody of his parents and was confined at the room of accused Shahnawaj. Accordingly, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 8 of 15 CR Cases 2270/201712. It is important to mention here that in this case charge u/s 365/342 IPC have been framed against both accused persons Munna Lal and Ram Bharose. Before proceeding further, it is further important to mention here that section 365 IPC embodies an aggravated form of offence of kidnapping as defined under Section 360 and 361 IPC and of abduction as defined under section 362 IPC.
Section 365 reads as under: -
Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
13. Section 342 reads as under: -
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished within imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
14. Essential ingredients of Section 342 IPC (wrongful confinement) to prove an offence under Section 342 IPC, the prosecution must establish:
(I) Wrongful Restrain: The accused must have restrained the complainant in such a way that they could not move beyond certain boundaries.
(II) Complete Obstruction: The restraint must be total, preventing the person from moving in any direction they have a right to move.
(III) Accused Action: The accused must have committed this act.FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 9 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017
15. Section 365 IPC is attracted when the kidnapping or abduction is committed with intent to secretly and wrongfully confined the victim. This section, thus makes punishable offence of kidnapping or abduction with intent to cause the person abducted to be secretly and wrongfully confined. This was held in "Akbar Ali Vs. Emperor AIR 1925 Lah. 614.
The intention of the abductors of kidnapper has to be judged from the facts and circumstances of the case including what the abductor did at the time of abduction and immediately thereafter. This was held in "State of U. P Vs. Laiq Singh 1968 Cr. L J 584 (598)
16. It is further important to mention here that the victim in this case is a minor, therefore offence of kidnapping is attracted here instead of abduction.
17. The essential ingredients of offence u/s 365 IPC, therefore are:-
I The accused kidnapped any person.
II. That he did so with intend to cause that person to be confined secretly and wrongfully.
18. It is further important to mention here that to bring home an offence u/s 365 IPC, the prosecution is to prove certain points. In order to establish the first essential requirement which are :
I. That the accused conveyed the victim without his consent II. Took or enticed away the minor, if male under 16 years, if female under 18 years or any person of unsound mind out of keeping of his or her lawful guardian without his consent.FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 10 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017
19. Thus, before proceeding further it is important to define the word "kidnapping" as to what constitute the offence of kidnapping. Kidnapping is defined u/s 359 IPC which says that kidnapping is of two kinds, kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
20. Thus in this present case, the kidnapping from lawful guardianship is relevant which is defined u/s 361 IPC. Section 361 IPC reads as under:
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 word "lawful Guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
Exception - This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believe himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
21. This Section 361 IPC has four essential ingredients:
I. Taking or enticing away a minor or person of unsound mind. II. Such minor must be under 16 years of age, if a male and under 18 years of age, if a female.
III. Taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of lawful guardianship of such minor or person of unsound mind. IV. Such taking or enticing must with without the consent of such guardians.
22. Thus the whole section centers around the word "takes" or enticed any minor". In Supreme Court Case Thakorlal D. Vadgama Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 11 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 1973 SC 2313, the court appreciated the word "whoever takes or enticed any minor" under section 361 IPC and observed as to what it actually means. According to Supreme Court, the word "takes" does not necessarily cannotes taking by forces and does not confined to use of force, actual or constructed. These words merely means" to cause to go", to escort" or " to keep into possession"
23. In this judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court so far as the word "takes" is concerned, observed that the graveman of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the ages specified in this section. Second, out of keeping of the lawful guardianship without the consent of said guardian. The word keeping in the context cannots the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control. However the guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with independence of action and movement of the minor, the guardian protection and control of the minor being available whenever necessity arises.
24. It is important to mention here that the lawful keeping under the lawful guardian's remains for all the time in all the condition whether the minor is physically with the parents or has gone away for some time from his parents or lawful guardian's.
25. In another case "State of Haryana Vs. Raja Ram AIR 1973 SC 879, Supreme Court held the object of Section 361 IPC that it seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper parties as to protect the rights and privileges of the guardian's having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards. The graveman of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the ages specified in this Section out of keeping of the lawful guardian's without the consent of such guardian. Thus the word "takes" or "enticed any FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 12 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 minor...........out of keeping" are significant.
26. On a plain reading of Section, the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is whole immaterial. It is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its preview nor is it necessarily 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 keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the section.
27. The taking need not be by force, actual or constructed and it is immaterial whether the minor consents or not.
28. In another case of Anandhan Vs. State 1966 Cr.L.J 210 it has been observed that there must be some proof of the accused having done something which led to the minor going out of keeping of his or her guardian's.
29. Enticing is an Act of the accused by which the person kidnapped is induced of his own accord to go to kidnappers.
30. In the present case, age of the minor boy is not disputed and on the date of the incident, the victim was aged about 12 years. One of the essential ingredients with regard a male boy being under 16 years is complied with.
31. With regard to taking or enticing away the minor from the lawful guardian's, the prosecution has examined two witnesses. One of the PW Banwari is the father of the minor child who had stated that the incident pertains to 4-5 years back, he had given complaint to the police that his son Gaurav was kidnapped who was around 12 years of age by accused Shahnawaj and his family members and was put FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 13 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 on a space above the wall (taand). PW-1 further stated that his son was recovered on the next day as he was heard shouting for help by the other persons of the locality. PW-1 further stated that he had not seen any person carrying away his son. PW-2 Gaurav the minor child further stated that it was the accused Shahnawaj who enticed him and took him to his house and thereafter, the accused gave him the food, after finishing the said food, the victim became sub conscious and accused Shahnawaj locked the said house from outside. In his statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, he had stated in clear words that it was accused Shahnawaj who offered him food i.e. Daal Chawal and after eating the same, the victim became unconscious, thereafter, accused Shahnawaj tied the hands of the victim and put him over the wall (taand).
32. Thus, PW-2 have stated in clear words that it was accused Shahnawaj who kidnapped the child Gaurav by offering him the Daal Chawal and was taken to his house, where he was wrongfully confined.
33. The consent of the minor is not material here and as, per law, the consent of the minor is no consent at all, so far as the offence of kidnapping is concerned. The prosecution, therefore, has shown that Gaurav S/o Sh. Banwari Lal was in the lawful guardianship of Banwari Lal who was also his father and accused Shahnawaj took away the minor from the lawful guardianship to his house by enticing him.
34. Further, all the essential ingredients of Section 342 IPC are hereby proved against the accused for wrongfully confining the victim. The accused on the other hand not shown from the record, nor have brought any evidence in his defence to rebut or contradict the testimony of PW-1 that he did not entice or take away the FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 14 of 15 CR Cases 2270/2017 minor child from the lawful guardianship of Banwari Lal father of the minor child Gaurav. The accused also not been able to contradict the fact that he did not take away the child to his house and he did not secretly confine the child at his house. The defence of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that no public witness has been examined by the prosecution in the present case does not hold much water as it is settled law that even a solitary witness whose testimony is of sterling quality meaning reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence, even without corroboration.
35. In the light of these facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and nothing to the contrary has been shown by accused to rebut the presumption against him that he is innocent. Thus, both essential requirement of criminal law i.e. mens rea i.e. the intention and the actus reas i.e. the action that the child was taken actually and confined to different place has been shown and established by the prosecution against the accused, thus, from the abovestated findings, I am of the considered opinion that offence of Section 365 and 342 IPC is fully establish by prosecution against accused Shahnawaj.
36. In view of the above discussion, accused Shahnawaj is convicted under Section 365 and 342 IPC. Digitally signed by CHATINDER CHATINDER SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.12.22 17:18:02 +0530 Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 22nd December, 2025 (Chatinder Singh) JMFC-04, South District, Saket Court/New Delhi FIR no. 276/2016 State vs. Shahnawaj Page 15 of 15