Delhi District Court
State vs Shahbuddin on 16 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-01, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI State Vs. : Shahabuddin FIR No : 528/2014 U/s : 363 IPC P.S. : Narela JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 5291741/2016 2. Date of commission of offence : 13.04.2014 3. Date of institution of the case : 23.04.2015 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Shahabuddin s/o Sh. Mohd. Hashim
6. Offense complained or proved : 363 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 01.04.2026
9. Final order : Convicted
10. Date of final order : 16.04.2026 State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 1/13
1. The accused is facing trial for offence u/s 363 IPC. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 13.04.2014 at about 12:00 noon, the minor girl namely Sabila, aged about 16 years, daughter of complainant Mohd. Iqbal, resident of F-158, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi, went missing from her house. The complainant, after making efforts to trace her, approached the police station and got his statement recorded, expressing suspicion that some unknown person had enticed and taken away his daughter. On the basis of the said statement, the present FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered at PS Narela and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the age of the prosecutrix was verified from school records, which reflected her date of birth as 08.04.1998, establishing her to be a minor at the time of incident. On 16.04.2014, the prosecutrix returned to her house and was brought to the Police Station, where her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She was also produced before the concerned Court, where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In her statement, she stated that she had gone with accused Shabuddin, whom she knew, on her own volition without informing her family members. She further stated that no wrongful act had been committed against her.
2. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination at SRHC Hospital; however, her mother declined internal medical examination. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was produced before CWC/DLSA for counselling. During the course of investigation, accused Shabuddin was State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 2/13 apprehended from JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 363 IPC was filed before the Court.
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 Shahabuddin on 27.01.2016 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 five 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. Counsel 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 State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 3/13 complainant by falsely implicating the accused. It is also argued on behalf of accused that 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 defense, let us discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses in brief.
(i) PW-1 Mohd. Iqbal, the complainant and brother of the prosecutrix, deposed that he resides at the given address along with his family and that on 13.04.2014 at about 12:00 noon, his sister Sabila, aged about 16 years, went missing from the house.
He stated that despite searching for her, she could not be traced, whereafter he lodged a complaint with the police, which is Ex. PW1/A. The witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity.
(ii) PW-2 Ms. Sabila, the prosecutrix, deposed that the accused Shabuddin, who was a tenant of her State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 4/13 sister, had called her near Hanuman Mandir, Bawana on 13.04.2014 and asked her to accompany him. She further deposed that she went along with the accused to the house of his relative where she stayed for about two days. She stated that the accused had promised to marry her and thereafter, the accused left her at a bus stand from where she returned home. She identified her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ex. PW2/A. During her further examination, she produced her birth certificate (Ex. PW2/A earlier Mark PW1/B). In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not remember when the accused took her to his native house and expressed inability to recall certain details such as clothes worn by her. However, she denied that accused has been falsely implicated or that the accused had not taken her. Upon her re-examination by Ld. APP for State, she affirmed that the incident had taken place on 13.04.2014 when the accused had taken her.
(iii) PW-3 Smt. Roshan Khatoon, mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that the accused was a tenant in the house of her daughter Sajida. She stated that the accused had taken her daughter Sabila without her consent. She further deposed that she came to know that the accused had kept her daughter at his sister's residence and despite calling him several times, he did not return the girl. She further stated that after about 3 days, the accused left her daughter and later on he was State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 5/13 arrested by the police. In her cross-examination, she stated that the house of her daughter Sajida was at a walking distance from her house and admitted that she had not seen the accused taking her daughter. She denied that the accused had not enticed her daughter or that he had been falsely implicated due to personal enmity or disputes regarding tenancy.
(iv) PW-4 SI Sudeep Phougat, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 14.04.2014, the complainant came to PS Narela and got recorded his statement, on the basis of which rukka Ex. PW4/A was prepared and FIR was registered. He further deposed that during investigation, the prosecutrix returned to her house and was taken to SRHC Hospital for medical examination; however, internal examination was refused by her and her mother. He further deposed that he got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate and collected documents regarding her age. He further deposed that during investigation, he came to know that the accused, who was residing as a tenant in the house of the prosecutrix's sister, had taken her and on 24.04.2014, upon receiving information regarding the whereabouts of the accused, he along with the complainant's mother and Lady Ct. Jyoti reached JJ Colony, Bawana, where the accused was apprehended at the instance of the complainant's mother vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 6/13 Ex. PW4/C. He further deposed 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 no public witnesses were joined at the time of arrest and no notice was served upon them. He also admitted that he did not make any departure entry and could not tell the exact place from where the victim was taken. He denied that the accused had been falsely implicated.
(v) PW-5 Lady Ct. Jyoti deposed that on 16.04.2014, she was posted at PS Narela and on the direction of IO, she took the prosecutrix to SRHC Hospital for medical examination. She stated that although medical examination was conducted, the prosecutrix refused internal examination. She further deposed that the mother of the prosecutrix told her that the accused had taken the girl by allurement. In her cross-examination, she stated that the medical examination was conducted at about 7:00 PM and admitted that she had not made any departure entry at the police station.
This is the entire evidence on case record.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
8. Statement of the accused u/s Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences were put to him.
State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 7/13 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:
9. 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.
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.
State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 8/13 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:
"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:
10. 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.
11. For the sake of repetition, it is again reiterated that the sum and substance of the allegations as levelled against accused is that on 13.04.2014 at about 12:00 Noon at House No. F-158, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi, accused Shahabuddin kidnapped the minor sister of complainant namely, Sabila who was around 16 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.
State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 9/13
12. 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.
13. 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. PW-1 has categorically deposed that his sister was about 16 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 reflects her date of birth as 08.04.1998. Besides, the PW-2 (victim herself) during her deposition has also produced the copy of birth certificate of the victim and the said record also the date of birth of victim has been reflected as 08.04.1998. The said documentary evidences have remained unchallenged and unrebutted during the course of trial. Ld. Defense Counsel, has offered no suggestions to any of the prosecution witnesses to discredit the authenticity of the said records. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the said evidence. Accordingly, it stands duly proved that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 10/13 age at the time of incident and hence, a minor. Thus, the first essential ingredient stands satisfied.
14. 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 the accused. In the present case, the relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution to establish the taking away or enticing of minor girl Sabila by the accused are the complainant/PW- 1 and PW-2 who are the brother and mother respectively of afore-named minor girl and the afore-named minor girl Sabila/PW-2 herself. PW-2 has categorically deposed that the accused called her and she went along with him to the house of his relative where she stayed for about two days. She further stated that the accused had promised to marry her. Her testimony clearly reflects that the accused induced her to accompany him. Though during her cross-examination, the prosecutrix stated that she had gone with the accused on her own will, however, it is a settled proposition of law that the consent of a minor is immaterial for the purpose of offence of kidnapping. The mere fact that she accompanied the accused voluntarily does not absolve the accused of criminal liability. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 further corroborates the version of the prosecutrix to the extent that the accused had taken her daughter and kept her away for some days. There is no material contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses which may dent the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, it stands proved that the prosecutrix was taken away by the accused and State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 11/13 therefore, the aforesaid second condition seems to be fulfilled in the present case.
15. 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 Sabila was taken out or enticed from the lawful guardianship without the consent of the guardian of said child. The discussion above clearly suggests about the existence of act of taking away or enticement of minor girl Sabila by the accused, therefore, the only fact which remains to be ascertained is that as to whether the minor girl Sabila was taken away by the accused from any lawful guardianship without the consent of the guardian of the child. It is pertinent to mention that PW-1 and PW-3 have consistently deposed that the prosecutrix went missing from the house and that she was taken without their consent. There is nothing on record to suggest that the parents had permitted the prosecutrix to accompany the accused. The defence has failed to bring on record any material to show that the accused had lawful custody or consent of the guardians. Therefore, it stands proved that the prosecutrix was taken away from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and hence, I am of the view that the prosecution is also successful in establishing the aforesaid third condition in present case.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has established all the essential conditions for holding the accused liable for offence U/s 363 IPC. Succinctly, the prosecution has State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 12/13 successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubts that on 13.04.2014 at about 12:00 Noon at H. No.F-158, JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi, accused Shahabuddin kidnapped minor sister of complainant i.e victim Sabila from the lawful guardianship of her parents and accordingly, this Court hereby holds accused Shahabuddin guilty for offence U/s 363 IPC. The accused is accordingly convicted for offence U/s 363 IPC.
17. Let the convict be heard separately on the point of sentencing.
Announced in open Court on 16.04.2026.
Digitally signed by RISHABH KAPOORRISHABH Date:
KAPOOR 2026.04.16 16:09:46 +0530 (Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi 16.04.2026 State Vs. Shahabuddin FIR No. 528/2014 PS Narela 13/13