Delhi District Court
State vs Chander Pal on 27 March, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 :
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURT:
NEW DELHI
SC 215/2025
STATE Vs. Chander Pal
FIR No. 296/2007
PS: Vasant Kunj North
U/s. 363/366 IPC
DLND01-005605-2025
STATE VS. Chander Pal
SC No. : 215/2025
Date of offence : 17.04.2007
Accused : Chander Pal S/o Sh.
Jugnu @ Ramoli,
R/o Village Maushalpur,
PS Toda Bhim, Distt.
Karauli, Rajasthan
And Also At
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 1 of 41
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Digitally
signed by
Syed Syed
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Zishan
Warsi
Ali
Ali Date:
2026.03.27
Warsi 20:12:47
+0530
2
R/o Village Sonkh,
Pasoli, Tehsil Chhata, PS
Chhata, Mathura, UP.
Offence : U/s. 363/368/174A IPC
(Charge framed u/s
363/366/174A IPC)
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 02.12.2009
Plea of accused(s) : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused Acquitted
Date of committal : 08.07.2025
Date of arguments : 24.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 27.03.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Accused person was committed for trial vide order dated 08.07.2025 by court of Sh. Animesh Kumar, Ld. JMFC-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi District, New Delhi.
2. On 15.07.2025, police report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was put and was registered on 25.08.2025 before ASJ-04, State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 2 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:12:52 +0530 3 Patiala House Court, New Delhi District, New Delhi with a view to put accused on trial.
3. Brief facts on the basis of which charge sheet was filed in the present matter are as follows:-
3.1. The case of prosecution is that on 10/05/2007 Smt. Shakuntala w/o Late Rajpal R/O juggi No.623 Maliak Pur Kohi, Rangpuri Phari, Vasant Kunj Delhi came to the police station and recorded her statement to SI Shiv Singh in front of her son Satveer Singh. She stated that I live with my family at the above mentioned address. I have three sons and two daughters. The elder daughter is married and the younger daughter Rajeshwari is 16 years old who used to do domestic work in the houses in C-8 Basant Kurje. On 17/04/2007, Chanderpal, a boy who lived in our neighbourhood and lived with his uncle Bhuri Singh in Rangpuri Pahadi, lured my daughter Rajeshwari and took her away to an unknown place. Till date, we have searched a lot for him and our daughter but could not find any clue. My daughter is dark complexioned, tall, height is around is 5 and a quarter feet tall and is wearing a light pink colour suit salwar. On finding the State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 3 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:12:55 +0530 4 case of U/S 363 IPC from the statement, SI Shiv Singh prepared the rukka and got the case registered in the police station and carried out the investigation. During the investigation, the statement were recorded and searched for the accused and the girl Rajeshwari was conducted. On 21/05/07, the investigation of the case was handed over to ASI Saroj. During the investigation, W/ASI Saroj sent a WT message for searching the prosecutrix and the accused, gave information in MPS, got the advertisement Shore Goga printed and distributed, gave information to the news paper and got the birth certificate of Prosecutrix Rajeshwari from Nagar Nigam Primary School Rangpuri Pahadi, according to which the D.O.B of the girl 03/06/1990. W/ASI Saroj obtained NBW against accused Chandarpal from Shri Virand Kumari MM house on 07/06/07 which could not be executed and the accused kept on evading his arrest, on 26/10/07 the investigation of the case was handed over to W/ASI Kailash, who on 06/02/08 the girl Rajeshwari was brought to the police station by her mother Shakuntala and told that her daughter had come home to her on 05/02/08, W/ASI Kailash took the girl Rajeshwari in his custody and got her examined by a doctor in SJ Hospital and presented her in the court, MM Praveen Kumar Sahib ordered to hand over State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 4 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.27 Warsi 20:12:58 +0530 5 the girl to her mother, the girl was handed over to her mother and on 08/02/08 the statement of prosecutrix Rajeshwari was recorded. U/S 164 CrPC link MM Tarun Kumar Shearawat Saheb got it done in the court and got a copy of the statement. The challan was filed and the accused was searched secretly and promptly but Chanderpal kept evading his arrest and on 19/05/09, NBW was obtained against the accused Chanderpal from the court of MM Kiran Bansal and on serving it, action was obtained against him under U/S 82,83 CrPC from the Honorable High Court and u/s 82, 83 CrPC action implemented by HC Thawar Singh NO.87/SD, on 10/09/09, the statement of HC Thawar Singh was recorded in the court of MM Kiran Bansal saheb and MM saheb ordered accused Chanderpal to be declared offender.
3.2. From the investigation, based on the statements of witnesses, the MLC and the Postmortem Report, sufficient evidence has been found against the accused namely Chander Pal S/o Sh. Jugnu @ Ramoli and chargesheet was filed under Sections 363/366 IPC. Later on 19.04.2025, supplementary chargesheet was also filed against the accused namely Chander State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 5 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:00 +0530 6 Pal S/o Sh. Jugnu @ Ramoli R/o Village Sonkh, Pasoli, Tehsil Chhata, PS Chhata, Mathura, UP.
4. Charge under Section 363/366 IPC was framed against accused Chander Pal S/o Sh. Jugnu on 29.10.2025. On the facts that on 17.04.2007 at unknown time at Israel Camp, Rangpuri Pahadi, Vasant Kunj Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Vasant Kunj North, you had kidnapped complainant's minor daughter namely 'R' from her lawful guardianship and thereby you committed an offence u/s 363 IPC. Secondly, on the above said date, time and place you kidnapped minor girl 'R' with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry against her will and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s 366 IPC. Thirdly, you failed to appear at specified place and the specified time required by a proclamation published under Section 82(1) CrPC and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 174A IPC.
4.1. On 29.10.2025, u/s 294 CrPC, Accused has admitted following documents and following which testimony of witnesses were dispensed with:
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 6 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Ali Date:
2026.03.27 Warsi 20:13:03 +0530 7
a) ASI Mahender Singh, who recorded the FIR, made endorsement on the Rukka regarding of the case. The copy of FIR is Ex.P1 and endorsement on the rukka is Ex.P2.
b) Sh. Tarun Kumar Sehrawat, the then Ld. MM, who recorded statement u/s 164 CrPC of Victim 'R'. The proceedings conducted by Sh. Tarun Kumar Sehrawat, the then Ld. MM, u/s 164 CrPC is Ex.P3.
c) PW/HC Thawar, who executed process u/s 82 & 83 CrPC.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined the following witnesses:
S. No. Name of PW Exhibit Nature of document
1. PW-1 Ex.PW1/A Complaint Smt. Shakuntla W/o Lt. Sh. Rajpal (Complainant)
2. PW-2 - -
Satbir S/o Lt. Sh.
Rajpal
3. PW-3 Ex. PW3/A Statement u/s 164 Rajeshwari D/o Lt. Cr.PC State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 7 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:06 +0530 8 Sh. Rajpal
4. PW-4 Ex. PW4/A Application for SI Saroj Yadav issuance of NBW against the accused
5. PW-5 Ex.PW5/A, Arrest memo, HC Ravinder Rana Ex. PW5/B Personal search memo and Ex. and Kalandara PW5/C
6. PW-6 - -
Retired SI Shiv Singh
7. PW-7 Mark PW7/A An application for Retd. W/SI Kailash copy of statement u/s 164 Cr.PC
6. PW1 Smt. Shakuntala deposed that she resides at the address mentioned in evidence. She deposed that all her children are married. Her younger daughter is Rajeshwari. At the time of incident, her daughter was 18 years old. On 17.04.2007, a dispute had taken place between her and the daughter. She left the house. She went to PS and made a complaint regarding the same of her daughter which is Ex.PW-1/A bearing her thumb impression at point X. Due to misunderstanding she had given the name of State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 8 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Digitally signed by Syed Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
Warsi 2026.03.27 20:13:09 +0530 9 accused Chandra pal to be the person who took away her daughter. After about 4 months, her daughter had come back to their house. She produced her daughter before the police.
6.1 PW1 during her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State deposed and admitted that she had made suspicion over accused Chandra pal who was residing in Rangpuri Pahari. She also admitted that she had told the police that accused Chandra pal had enticed her daughter and took away. She denied that accused Chandra pal had enticed her daughter and took away to his residence situated in Rajasthan in order to get marry with accused. She also denied that her daughter told her about the aforesaid facts. She also denied that she is deposing falsely as she has been won over by the accused.
6.2. PW1 during her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Accused deposed and admitted that at the time of incident her daughter was major. She has no birth certificate of her daughter.
7. PW2 Satbir deposed that he is residing at the address stated in evidence. He has three sons and two daughters. All his State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 9 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:12 +0530 10 children are married. Rajeshwari is his youngest daughter. At the time of incident, her daughter was 18 years old. On 17.04.2007, a dispute had taken place between his wife and his daughter. His daughter left the house in anger. His wife Shakuntla went to PS and made a complaint regarding the missing. Due to misunderstanding his wife had given the name of accused Chandra pal to be the person who took away their daughter. After about 4 months, her daughter had come back to their house and was produced before the police.
7.1 PW2 during his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State deposed and admitted that he had made suspicion over accused Chandra pal who was residing in Rangpuri Pahari. PW-2 also admitted that he had told the police that accused Chandra pal had enticed his daughter and took away. PW-2 has denied that accused Chandra pal had enticed his daughter and took away to their residence situated in Rajasthan in order to get marry with accused. PW-2 has denied that his daughter told him about the aforesaid facts. PW-2 has denied that he is deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused.
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 10 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:15 +0530
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 11 7.2 PW2 during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Accused deposed and admitted that at the time of incident his daughter was major. He has no birth certificate of his daughter. He did not know as to on which document his daughter got admission in the school.
8. PW3 Rajeshwari D/o Late Sh. Rajpal deposed that at the time of incident, she was 18 years of age. On 17.04.2007, the dispute had taken place between her and her parents. In anger, she left her house and went to Rajasthan. After about 4 months she came back to her house when she realized that she had not done good act. She was taken to Police Station. Now, she had married and has four children. She did not want to say anything else.
8.1 PW3 during her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State deposed and admitted that Ex. PW-3/A bears her signature at point A. PW3 also admitted that she had given the statement before the Magistrate voluntarily. She had given the aforesaid statement on the asking of IO as was stated to her that if she would not give such statement she would be implicated in this State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 11 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:17 +0530 12 case. PW3 denied that she used to meet accused Chandrapal at the resident of Rajo who is her maternal aunt (Mami) in relation. She also denied that Rajo told her that her parents would not marry him. She also denied that Rajo told her that Chandrapal was a good boy and asked her to go with accused. She also denied that she went with Chandrapal at accused resident situated at Balaji, Rajasthan. She also denied that she married with accused Chandrapal in a temple. She also denied that the parents of accused Chandrapal had also got married her in their resident. She also denied that accused Chandrapal enticed her to marry with him and took her to their residence. Statement Ex. PW-3/A from A to A is read over to the witness. She states that the aforesaid statement was given by her before the Magistrate. She denied that she was deposing falsely or that accused enticed her to get marry with accused or that in order to get marry with accused, took her to accused residence. She denied that she got married with accused Chandrapal.
8.2 PW3 during her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Accused deposed and admitted that accused never asked her to get marry with accused. At the time of marriage, she was more State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 12 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:19 +0530 13 than 18 years of age. Accused never took her to his residence situated at Rajasthan.
9. PW4 SI Saroj yadav deposed that on 21.05.2007 she was posted at PS V.K. North as W/ASI. On that day further investigation of the present case was given to her. After receiving the case file she had gone through the same. During her investigation, in the search of victim she got done the WT messages to all SSPs and SHOs in India. She got distributed the hue and cry notices regarding the search of the victim. She also got pressed/published regarding the same search through newspaper. She also collected the age documents of the victim from the concerned school, as per which the victim was the minor. She tried to search the accused and she also got issued NBW against the accused but she never find the accused. Meanwhile she got ill due to which the investigation of the present case was transferred to some other police official. Application for issuance of NBW against the accused i.e. Ex.PW4/A bearing her signature at point A State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 13 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:22 +0530 14 9.1. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Chander Pal. PW4 during her cross-examination denied that victim was minor at the time of alleged incident. She also denied the suggestion that she did not do any investigation of the present case. She also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
10. PW5 HC Ravinder Rana deposed that on 03.01.2023 he was posted at PS Kamla Market as HC. On that day he alongwith HC Pradeep was on the duty of apprehending the proclaimed offenders. On that day he received the secret information regarding accused Chander Pal who was declared PO vide order dated 20.08.2009 by Ld. ACMM, Smt. Kiran Bansal in FIR No. 296/2007, under Sections 363/366 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. PW5 further deposed that he received the secret information that accused Chander Pal is present at his house in his village i.e. Pasoli, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh and if a raid would be conducted then accused might be apprehended. After discussing about the secret information with the senior officers he alongwith HC Pradeep went to Village Pasoli, Mathura and apprehended the accused Chander Pal. Accused is present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness. After doing State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 14 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:24 +0530 15 the interrogation with the accused he arrested accused and conducted his personal search. Thereafter he prepared one kalandara. He also got conducted the medical examination of the accused. Arrest memo is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A. Personal search memo Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point A. Kalandara is Ex.PW5/C bearing his signature at point A. 10.1. PW5 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused Chander Pal. PW4 during his cross-examination denied the suggestion that accused was evading his arrest in the present case as he did not have any knowledge regarding the present case. PW4 denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
11. PW6 Retired SI Shiv Singh deposed that on 10.05.2007 he was posted as SI at PS Vasant Kunj. On that day Shakuntala w/o Late Sh. Rajpal alongwith her son Satveer came at PS and orally complained that daughter namely 'R' was kidnapped by neighbourer namely Chander Pal. He recorded the statement of Shakuntala which is already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B and RTI of Shakuntala at point X. On the basis of statement of Shakuntala he prepared the rukka which was already State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 15 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally Syed signed Syed by Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.27 Warsi 20:13:30 +0530 16 Ex.P2 bearing his signature at point B. He handed over rukka to Duty Officer. After registration of FIR, duty officer handed over to him copy of FIR and original rukka. He tried to search the victim as well as to accused but in vain. He recorded statement of witnesses. On 21.05.2007 investigation of the present case was handed over to W/ASI Saroj. He handed over the documents of the present case to MHC(R).
12. PW7 Rtd. W/SI Kailash deposed that on 26.10.2007, she was posted as ASI at PS Vasant Kunj. On that day investigation of the present case was marked to her. On 06.02.2008 complainant Shakuntala alongwith her daughter 'R' came to PS Vasant Kunj and informed PW7 that her daughter had come to her house on 05.02.2008. Thereafter the victim 'R' was taken to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination and thereafter she was produced before court and she was handed over to her parents with the permission of the court. Thereafter she called victim alongwith the mother of victim to court on 08.02.2008 and her statement u/s 164 CrPC was recorded in the court. She identified the victim before the Ld. Magistrate and put her signature at point A on Ex.P3 in this regard. Thereafter she State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 16 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:35 +0530 17 moved an application for copy of statement u/s 164 CrPC. Copy of the said application is now marked as Mark PW7/A bearing my signature at point X. Statement of victim u/s 164 CrPC is already Ex.P3. Thereafter victim was taken by mother to her home. Thereafter she tried to search accused Chander Pal but in vain. She moved an application before concerned court and obtained NBW against accused Chander Pal. They tried to trace the accused but in vain. She visited their house as well as HC Thawar also visited several times but could not locate accused Chander Pal. Thereafter proceedings u/s 82/83 CrPC were initiated against accused Chander Pal and was declared absconder by concerned court. She prepared the charge-sheet and filed in the court and kept accused Smt. Rajo Devi in column No. 12 as she did not find sufficient evidence against accused Rajo Devi.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
13. After completion of prosecution evidence, all incriminating material as appearing in the evidence was put to the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Chanderpal has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 17 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Zishan Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi Ali Date:
Warsi 2026.03.27 20:13:37 +0530 18
14. On separate statement of Ld. Counsel for Accused, Accused has closed his DE. Accordingly, DE was closed vide order dated 18.03.2026.
ARGUMENTS
15. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submits that prosecutrix 'R' was minor and she was taken by the accused without the lawful consent of her guardian and FIR for the same is lodged and proved by the prosecution. It is also submitted that despite service of the proclamation the accused has not appeared and he was declared proclaimed offender and prosecution is successful in discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted under Section 363, 366 and 174 A of IPC.
16. Per contra, ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant i.e. mother of the prosecutrix State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 18 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
2026.03.27 Warsi 20:13:40 +0530 19 as well as prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution even in cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State they have maintained their stand that prosecutrix was major on the date of incident and due to quarrel with her mother she has left her house on her own will and no involvement of the accused is brought on record. Even the prosecutrix has stated that under the pressure of IO she has given the statement and not of her free will. The prosecutrix was produced by the mother of prosecutrix. The mother of the prosecutrix has specifically stated that due to misunderstanding she mentioned the name of accused. Lastly, it is submitted that the proclamation was not in accordance with section 82 CrPC and the address of the accused is different as given in the proclamation because the arrest memo and supplementary chargesheet has mentioned different address of the accused and no public announcement as per Section 82 is made. It is also submitted that the proclamation is bad in law. It is prayed that the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 19 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:43 +0530 20 APPRECIATION & ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE (Evidence has to be examined whether the alleged facts are proved, disproved or not proved on the anvil of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt).
17. It is fundamental principle that the prosecution must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond every conceivable doubt but it has to be beyond any reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt requires the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt up to a degree that no rational or logical doubt remains in the mind of a reasonable person. The following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also explained the position in State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath-AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 2005, 1999 (5) SCC 96.
"It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all elements with scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression reasonable doubt is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the judge.
Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on Criminal Law in US has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book on State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 20 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:45 +0530 21 Whartons Criminal Evidence as follows (at page 31, volume 1 of the 12th Edition):
"It is difficult to define the phrase reasonable doubt. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster Case. He says: It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
In the treatise on the Law of Criminal Evidence authored by HC Underhill it is stated (at page 34, Volume 1 of the Fifth Edition) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair-minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
In Shivaji Saheb Rao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra [1974 (1) SCR 489] this Court adopted the same approach to the principle of benefit of doubt and struck a note of caution that the dangers of exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. This Court further said: "The judicial instrument has a public State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 21 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:48 +0530 22 accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt." These are reiterated by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohatgi [AIR 1983 SC 67]."
18. Now coming to the present case the relevant sections under which charge is framed i.e. Section 363 and 366 IPC and the same are reproduced below:-
"Section 363 IPC: Punishment for kidnapping.--Whoever kidnaps any person from [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.
Section 366 IPC: Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 22 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:51 +0530 23 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; [and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid]."
19. As the provisions under Section 363 and 366 IPC are related to kidnapping it is also relevant to consider the definition of kidnapping as given under Section 359 and 361 IPC and the same are reproduced as follows:
"Section 359 IPC: Kidnapping--Kidnapping is of two kinds:
kidnapping from [India], and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
Section 361 IPC: 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 State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 23 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally Syed signed by
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Ali Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Date:
Ali
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Warsi 2026.03.27 20:13:54 +0530 24 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."
Exception.--This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes 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.
On conjoint reading of the aforesaid sections i.e. Kidnapping, kidnapping from lawful guardianship, punishment of kidnapping and kidnapping or abducting a women to force marriage and seduction. The essential element for the present case is that the female under 18 years of age has to be taken or enticed away from her guardian without consent and the consent of the minor is immaterial.
20. If the same has to be applied and appreciated in the present State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 24 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:13:57 +0530 25 case then the testimony of PW1, Smt. Shakuntala, Mother of kidnapped minor daughter namely 'R', the name of the prosecutrix is not disclosed here as well as in the later part of the judgment and she is referred as 'R'. On careful perusal of the testimony of PW1 Smt. Shakuntala, she has not supported the prosecution case and stated that at the time of incident her daughter i.e. 'R' was 18 years old and due to dispute with her she left the house. She went to PS and made a complaint i.e. Ex. PW1/A and due to misunderstanding she had given the name of accused Chander Pal to be the person who took away her daughter. She also stated that after four months her daughter had came back to her house and she was produced before the police by her. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she stated that she had suspicion over accused Chander Pal and due to misunderstanding she had told the name of Chander Pal to the police. She denied the suggestion that accused Chander Pal had enticed her daughter and took away to his residence in Rajasthan in order to get marry with him. She also denied the suggestion that her daughter told her about the aforesaid facts. In cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, she has stated that her daughter was major at the time of incident and she has no birth State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 25 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:00 +0530 26 certificate of her daughter. PW-2 Satbir has also not supported the case of prosecution and her testimony is similar in nature to that of PW-1 Shakuntala. The last important witness is the victim 'R' who has been examined as PW3 and in her testimony she has not supported the case of prosecution and specifically stated that at the time of incident she was 18 years of age and on 17.04.2007, due to dispute between her and her parents in anger she left her house and went to Rajasthan. After about 4 months, she came back to her house when she realized that she had not done a good act and she was taken to police station. In cross- examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted her signatures on Ex. PW3/A i.e. her 164 CrPC statement before the Ld. MM but she categorically stated that the statement was given on the asking of IO as she stated to her that if she would not give such statement she would be implicated in this case. She denied the suggestion that she used to meet accused Chander Pal or she went with Chander Pal or she married with accused Chander Pal or accused Chander Pal enticed her to marry with him and took her to his residence. In cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Accused, she deposed that the accused never asked her to get marry with him and the accused never took her to his residence State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 26 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:02 +0530 27 situated at Rajasthan. Thus from the aforesaid testimonies of witnesses, the prosecution is not able to prove the fact that the Prosecutrix 'R' was either minor i.e. below the age of 18 years of age at the time of incident or she was enticed, lured or taken by the accused Chander Pal.
21. Even in the testimony of IO i.e. PW4/SI Saroj Yadav, she has only stated that she collected the age documents of the victim from the concerned school, as per which the victim was minor. However, the witness or the prosecution has not explained how they came to know about the school of the victim and how they collected the age documents of the victim and the documents are also not produced during the course of evidence by the prosecution in evidence. On the other hand, the victim 'R' and her mother in their deposition has clearly stated that the victim was aged about 18 years at the date of incident.
22. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the victim 'R' was major on the date of incident and she has left her home due to dispute with her mother and only on the basis of State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 27 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Digitally signed by Syed Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
Warsi 2026.03.27 20:14:05
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals +0530 28 suspicion in complaint Ex. PW1/A the name of accused Chander Pal was mentioned by the mother i.e. PW1 Smt. Shakuntala without any valid cause/reason to believe and only on the basis of misunderstanding, accused was implicated and the recovery of prosecutrix 'R' is also not from the accused which also indicates that the prosecutrix 'R' was not with the accused. Thus prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence u/s 363, 366 of IPC against the accused.
23. As the prosecution has failed to prove offence u/s 363 and 366 of IPC against the accused Chander Pal. But it is also relevant to consider the offence u/s 174A of IPC against the accused Chander Pal. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to consider the necessary condition which has to be fulfilled for conviction u/s 174A IPC i.e. due compliance of Section 82 CrPC in the present case. It is also relevant that in the matter of Crl. M.C. 5328/2013 Sunil Tyagi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. AIR OnLine 2021 Del 912, wherein the position and conditions of Section 82 CrPC are elaborated as well as guidelines were also issued and the relevant paras important for this case in my State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 28 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:08 +0530 29 opinion are reproduced as follows:
".....175. The three clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 82(2)(i) CrPC are conjunctive and not disjunctive. The issue of valid publication depends on the satisfaction of each of these clauses. Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) is optional; it is not an alternative to clause (i). The latter clause is mandatory.....
.....183. The failure to comply with all the three modes of publication is to be considered invalid publication according to law as the three sub-clauses (a) to (c) are conjunctive and not disjunctive.....
.....238. Section 82 CrPC lays down the process for proclamation of persons absconding as offenders. Section 82(1) provides that where the Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is concealing himself such that the warrant cannot be executed, the Court may publish a written proclamation requiring the person to appear at a specified date and time not less than thirty days from the date of proclamation. Section 82(2) lays down the manner in which the proclamation shall be published, which includes its reading in a conspicuous place of the town or village where the person resides; affixation to a conspicuous part of the house or homestead where the person resides; affixation of a copy of the proclamation to a conspicuous part of the Court House and the same may also be published in a daily newspaper. Section 82(4) lays down that where the proclamation provided for in Section 82(1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence specified in the section and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time, the Court may pronounce him a proclaimed offender after making such inquiry as it deems fit..... .....264. As per Section 82(2), a proclamation may be published in two ways i.e., (i) publicly read, affixed to a conspicuous part State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 29 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally signed by Syed Syed
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali Warsi 2026.03.27
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 20:14:10 +0530 30 of the house or homestead in which the person ordinarily resides or to a conspicuous part of the town or village or the court house and (ii) publication of the proclamation in a daily newspaper circulated in the area where the person ordinarily resides. However, (ii) above may only be resorted to if the court thinks fit and is not an alternative to (i) above, while (i) is mandatory. As such, in view of the serious repercussions that publication of a proclamation has on an individual, it is essential to ensure that a proclamation is published only in the manner provided in Section 82(2). Thus, the Court must apply its mind to see if the proclamation has been issued in compliance with Section 82(1), Section 82(2)(i) has been complied with and if, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to resort to publication under Section 82(2)(ii). The Court must further record a statement under Section 82(3) stating that Section 82(2)
(i) has been complied with......
......267. Hence, proceedings under Section 174A IPC may only be initiated after a proclamation under Section 82(1) has been issued. As per Circular dated 01st January, 2014 issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Legal Cell, Delhi in the event a chargesheet has already been filed prior to the accused having been declared a „proclaimed offender‟, a supplementary chargesheet must be filed for the offence under Section 174A IPC. The Circular further states that in a Complaint case, where no fresh FIR exists, a fresh FIR under Section 174A should be registered when information with respect to an offence under Section 174A IPC is received.....
.....The manner in which Proclamation shall be made
289. Sub-section 2 of Section 82 of the CrPC specifies the manner in which proclamation can be made. They are as follows:
(i) The proclamation shall be read out publicly in a noticeable area that falls under the vicinity of the residential address of the person or it shall be attested to some part of the person‟s house State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 30 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally signed by
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Syed Zishan Zishan Warsi Ali Ali Date:
Warsi 2026.03.27
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 20:14:13 +0530 31 or on a nearby building. Either of those should be attested to someplace which is observable; or
(ii) It shall be attached to a noticeable place in the Court.
(iii) If the Court deems fit, it might give orders for publishing the proclamation on the newspaper which is circulated in the vicinity of the person‟s residence......
......296. In Rohit Kumar @ Raju v. State of NCT Delhi, (2007) 98 DRJ 714 it has been observed as follows:
――17. The sine qua non for an action under Section 82 is the prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court. There must be a report before the Magistrate that the person against whom the warrant was issued by him had absconded or had been concealing himself so that such warrant can be issued. An attachment warrant can be issued only after the issuance of proclamation.
18. The expression ―reason to believe occurring in Section 82 Cr.P.C. suggests that the Court must be subjectively satisfied that the person has absconded or has concealed himself on the materials before him. The term ―absconded is not to be understood as implying necessarily that a person leaves the place in which he is. Its etymological and its ordinary sense is to hide oneself. Further, under Section 82 Cr.P.C. the Court issuing proclamation must record its satisfaction that accused had ―absconded or ―concealed himself. [19] The three clauses
(a), (b), and (c) of sub- section (2) (i) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are conjuctive and not disjunctive. The factum of valid publication depends on the satisfaction of each of these clauses. Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) is optional; it is not an alternative to clause (1). The latter clause is mandatory.....
.....298. The words "ordinarily resides" used in Section 82 (2)(i)
(a) shall be interpreted liberally to mean not just the official address of the accused but also where the accused ordinarily resides i.e. any place where he would unofficially spend most of his time.
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 31 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Zishan Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:17 +0530 32
299. In view of the above legal position it is crystallised that Section 82(2)(i) are to be mandatory followed which are conjunctive not disjunctive...... .....451. Publication by all three modes essential - Publication by all three modes namely (i) public reading in some conspicuous place of the town/village in such person ordinarily resides; (ii) affixation at some conspicuous part of the house or homestead and (iii) affixation at some conspicuous part of the court house are mandatory under Section 82(2) CrPC. The failure to comply with all the three modes of publication is to be considered invalid publication, according to law as the three sub-clauses (a) to (c) are conjunctive and not disjunctive.
452. Section 82 CrPC to be read as a whole - The three clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of Section 82(2)(i) CrPC are conjunctive and not disjunctive. The factum of valid publication depends on the satisfaction of each of these clauses. Clause (ii) of sub-Section (2) is optional; it is not an alternative to clause (i). The latter clause is mandatory......
.....459. Execution of Section 82/83 CrPC processes to be done by an officer not below the rank of S.I., since it is now a cognizable offence, under 174A IPC - Since abscondance and declaration as a Proclaimed Person/Offender has now become a cognizable and non- bailable offence, it is imperative that the execution of Sections 82 and 83 CrPC is done by an officer not below the rank of Sub- Inspector....."
24. It is also relevant to reproduce Section 82 of CrPC and Section 174 A of IPC which reads as follows:
"Section 82 CrPC: Proclamation for person absconding.--(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 32 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:20 +0530 33 by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:--
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 33 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:23 +0530 34 section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. (5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).]"
"Section 174A: Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974.-- Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 34 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Zishan
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:26 +0530 35 fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.]"
25. Now coming to the case at hand on 29.10.2025 u/s 294 CrPC, accused Chander Pal has given No Objection to the formal recording of testimony of PW/HC Thawar, who executed process u/s 82 and 83 CrPC. The said witness is not produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. As the accused has admitted the proceedings of the witness HC Thawar Singh, the same is relevant to be considered whether they are in accordance with the conditions of Section 82 CrPC. The deposition of CW-1 HC Thawar Singh dated 10.09.2009 is reproduced as follows:
"CW-1. Statement of HC Thawar Singh PIS NO. 28824534. PS Vasant Kuni Process server in respect of the NBW and Process U/s 82 and 83 CrPC.
On SA On 13.05.09 I was posted as HC at PS Vasant Kuni. On that I received NBW in respect of accused chander Pal S/o Jugunu r/o Vill. Mashal Pur. PS- Bal Ghat earlier asToda Bhim. Distt. Karauli, Rajasthan. Accused was not found at State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 35 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Syed Digitally signed by Zishan Ali Zishan Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
Warsi 2026.03.27 20:14:29 +0530 36 the given address. My report on NBW is Ex. C1 On 10.07.09 I took the Process U/s 82 issued by the Hon'ble Court in the above noted matter in respect of the above mention accused and visited at the above mentioned give address where the Accused was not found and on inquiries from one lady namely Laccho Devi who had stated to be his mother told that she had no relation with the accused as she got married to some other persons after the death of her husband Jugunu 23-24 years back. I also recorded the statement of the one of the neighbourer namely Ram Prakash s/o Sh. Dauzi who also stated the same as stated by Smt. Laccho Devi. I also got pasted one copy of process U/s. 82 Cr.P.c. On the wall of house and also on the notice board of this court. My detail report for the execution of the process U/s 82 Cr. P.C is ex. C2 bearing my signatures at Point A. On 10.07.09 I also took the process issued U/s 83 Cr. P.C against aforesaid accused. No movable and Immovable properties which belongs to the accused were found. The report in respect of the process u/s 83 crpc against the above accused is ex. C-3 bearing my signatures at point A."
26. Thus from the testimony of CW-1, HC Thawar Singh it precipitates that he got the information from Laccho Devi and neighbor Ram Prakash that Laccho Devi has no relation with accused after her remarriage 23-24 years back. Thus, it is not established that the accused is residing on the given address State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 36 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined Digitally
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed signed by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Ali Date:
2026.03.27 Warsi 20:14:34 +0530 37 mentioned in the proclamation. Further, no public reading of the proclamation is stated to be made in conspicuous place of the town or village by CW-1, HC Thawar Singh which is a mandatory condition as per Section 82 (2)(i)(a) and the address of the accused after arrest in supplementary charge-sheet is shown as Village Sonkh, Pasoli, Tehsil Chhata, PS Chhata, Mathura, UP which is after his arrest and different from the address shown in proclamation. Thus, proclamation is not in accordance and compliance of the conditions of Section 82 CrPC. Hence in the light of the Sunil Tyagi (supra) judgement and settled position of law, it is not proved that accused has failed to appear as required by the proclamation u/s 82 CrPC and prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offence u/s 174A IPC against the accused and accused Chander Pal is hereby acquitted for the offences u/s 363, 366 and 174A of IPC.
CONCLUSION The accused Chander Pal is acquitted for all the offences in the present case.
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 37 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents Syed Digitally signed
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals by Syed Zishan Zishan Ali Warsi Date:
Ali 2026.03.27
20:14:37
Warsi +0530
38
The bail bonds of accused Chander Pal are cancelled and surety is discharged.
Case property, if any, is confiscated to state be disposed off as per rules after period of appeal and in case of appeal, as per the direction of Hon'ble Appellate Court.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT on 27.03.2026 Digitally signed
Syed by Syed Zishan
Zishan Ali Warsi
Date: 2026.03.27
Ali Warsi 20:14:42 +0530
(SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/27.03.2026
State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 38 of 41
ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 39
(i) Chart for witnesses examined Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No.
1. PW-1 Mother of Victim Smt. Shakuntla W/o Lt.
Sh. Rajpal
2. PW-2 --
Satbir S/o Lt. Sh. Rajpal
3. PW-3 Victim/Prosecutrix Rajeshwari D/o Lt. Sh.
Rajpal
4. PW-4 First IO SI Saroj Yadav
5. PW-5 Arrested the HC Ravinder Rana PO/Accused
6. PW-6 Recorded the statement Retired SI Shiv Singh of Complainant Shakuntala Ex. PW1/A and prepared rukka.
7. PW-7 Second IO Retd. W/SI Kailash Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:48 +0530 State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 39 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals 40
(ii) Chart for exhibited documents Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by / Attested No. by
1. Ex.PW1/A PW-1 Complaint Smt. Shakuntla W/o Lt. Sh. Rajpal
2. - PW-2 Satbir S/o Lt. Sh.
Rajpal
3. Ex. PW3/A PW-3 Statement u/s 164 Cr.PC Rajeshwari D/o Lt.
Sh. Rajpal
4. Ex. PW4/A PW-4 Application for issuance of SI Saroj Yadav NBW against the accused
5. Ex.PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW-5 PW5/C HC Ravinder Rana Arrest memo, Personal search memo and Kalandara respectively
6. - PW-6 Retired SI Shiv Singh
7. Mark PW7/A PW-7 An application for copy of Retd. W/SI Kailash statement u/s 164 Cr.PC State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 40 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Digitally signed by Syed Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 20:14:51 +0530 41
(iii) Chart for material objects / muddamals Material Description of the Proved by / Attested by Object No. Exhibit
1. -- PW-1 Smt. Shakuntla W/o Lt. Sh. Rajpal
2. -- PW-2 Satbir S/o Lt. Sh. Rajpal
3. -- PW-3 Rajeshwari D/o Lt. Sh. Rajpal
4. -- PW-4 SI Saroj Yadav
5. -- PW-5 HC Ravinder Rana
6. -- PW-6 Retired SI Shiv Singh
7. -- PW-7 Retd. W/SI Kailash Digitally signed Syed by Syed Zishan Ali Zishan Ali Warsi Date: 2026.03.27 Warsi 20:14:55 +0530 (SYED ZISHAN ALI WARSI) Addl. Sessions Judge-04 Patiala House Courts New Delhi/27.03.2026 State Vs. Chander Pal Page no. 41 of 41 ANNEXED : (i) Chart for witnesses examined
(ii) Chart for Exhibited Documents
(iii) Chart for Material objects / muddamals