Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjida on 14 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA
- : JUDGMENT :-
STATE Vs. SANJIDA & ANR.
FIR NO. : 111/2008, U/s 363/365/342/506/34 IPC
PS : NEW USMANPUR
A. CIS No. of the Case : 463862/15
B. FIR No. 111/2008
C. Date of Institution : 19.10.2010
D. Date of Commission of : 23.02.2008
Offence
E. Name of the Accused, his : 1) Sanjida W/o Shamim
Parentage & Addresses (proceeding abated).
2) Shamim @ Shamiullah
S/o Hafijullah
(both residents of H. No.
S-60, Gali No. 21,
Brahmpuri, Delhi).
F. Representation on behalf of : Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld.
APP for the State.
G. Offence complained of : 363/365/342/506/34 IPC
H. Offence charged with : 363/365/342/506/34 IPC
I. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
J. Order reserved on : 17.03.2025
K. Date of Order : 14.05.2025
Digitally
signed by
L. Final Order : Acquitted
ANMOL
ANMOL NOHRIA
NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14
15:57:12
+0530
State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 1 of 16
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case :-
1.The present prosecution case was put into action with the complaint dated 10.05.2008 of the complainant Alauddin wherein he stated that his daughter Rubina aged about 11-12 years has been missing for which his wife has already lodged DD No. 06A dated 24.02.2008 but at that time they did not have doubt on any one, however, upon inquiry they have found that lady namely Sanjida, who was previously their neighbour has enticed her and she has taken her away and kept her in wrongful confinement.
2. On the basis of the complaint, FIR no. 111/08, U/s 363 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused persons for offences U/s 363/365/342/506/34 IPC.
3. Cognizance was taken and thereafter, charge for the offence punishable u/s 363/365/342/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 09.05.2013. The accused persons pleaded not guilty for the charges against them and preferred trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove Digitally its case beyond reasonable doubt :-
signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 15:57:19 +0530 State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 2 of 16 ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Rubina (victim) PW-2 : W/Ct. Rita (police witness) PW-3 : Ct. Amit (police witness) PW-4 : Rahima (mother of victim) Retd. SI Ali Ahmed Khan (2nd PW-5 :
IO)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW2/A : Arrest memo of Sanjida
Personal search memo of
Ex. PW2/B :
Sanjida
Disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW2/C :
Sanjida Ex. PW3/A : Arrest memo of Shamim Personal search memo of Ex. PW3/B :
Shamim ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex. A1 : FIR Ex. A2 : Statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C.
5. During the trial accused Sanjida has expired and proceedings against her were abated vide order dated 20.03.2023.
6. PE was closed on 09.04.2024. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, separate statement of the accused was recorded without oath under Section 313 CrPC (read with Section 281 CrPC) wherein he has denied the allegations in toto. He stated that he wishes to lead DE and he has been falsely Digitally signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 15:57:31 +0530 State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 3 of 16 implicated in the present case.
7. Thereafter, matter was listed for DE, however, counsel for the accused on 04.02.2025 submitted that he does not want to lead DE, consequently, DE stood closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
9. It is argued by the learned APP for the State that that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case and the State has duly proved its case. He has argued that the minority of the victim has been proved and it has also been proved that accused was involved with co-accused (now deceased) in acting concealment/confinement of a minor child. The case of the prosecution is also supported by the victim herself. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond any reasonable doubt and there is no direct evidence in this case. It is further argued that there is no Digitally signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 15:57:36 +0530 State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 4 of 16 evidence to show any act/enticement on behalf of the accused to fulfill the ingredient of kidnapping or to show active involvement of the accused Shamim in the present case. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offences.
11. In the instant case, the accused Shamim has been charged with offence punishable under section 363/365/34, 506/34 & 342/34 IPC for having kidnapped minor child Rubina, having criminally intimidated her by extending threats to kill her and her family members and having wrongfully confined her by handing over her custody to person namely Famida in furtherance of his common intention with co-accused Sanjida (now deceased).
363. 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.
365. 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.
Digitally signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation - NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 Whoever commits the offence of criminal 15:57:41 +0530 intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 5 of 16 grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
342. Punishment for wrongful confinement -
Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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.
12. Every charge of section 365 IPC is an aggravated form of either the offence of kidnapping defined in section 361 IPC or abduction defined in section 362 IPC.
"361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.-- Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Explanation.-- The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.(Exception)-- This Digitally signed by section does not extend to the act of any person ANMOL who in good faith believes himself to be the ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date: father of an illegitimate child, or who in good 2025.05.14 15:57:46 faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful +0530 custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 6 of 16
362. Abduction.--
Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person."
13. In Anversinh v. State of Gujarat, (2021) 3 SCC 12 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"A perusal of Section 361 IPC shows that it is necessary that there be an act of enticing or taking, in addition to establishing the child's minority (being sixteen for boys and eighteen for girls) and care/keep of a lawful guardian. Such "enticement" need not be direct or immediate in time and can also be through subtle actions like winning over the affection of a minor girl.
However, mere recovery of a missing minor from the custody of a stranger would not ipso facto establish the offence of kidnapping. Thus, where the prosecution fails to prove that the incident of removal was committed by or at the instigation of the accused, it would be nearly impossible to bring the guilt home."
14. In Parkash v. State of Haryana, (2004) 1 SCC 339 , the apex court discussing the principle behind the enactment of S. 361 IPC has observed that:
"The object of this section seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as to protect the rights and privileges of guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards. The gravamen of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the ages specified in this section, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without Digitally signed by the consent of such guardian. The words "takes ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA or entices any minor ... out of the keeping of the NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 lawful guardian of such minor" in Section 361, 15:57:51 +0530 are significant. The use of the word "keeping" in the context connotes the idea of charge, State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 7 of 16 protection, maintenance and control; further, the guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with the independence of action and movement of the minor, the guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity arises. On plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial; it is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its purview. Nor is it necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud. Persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the section."
15. In Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (1973) 2 SCC 413 it was, inter alia, observed as follows :
"The expression used in Section 361 IPC is 'whoever takes or entices any minor'. The word 'takes' does not necessarily connote taking by force and it is not confined only to use of force, actual or constructive. This word merely means, 'to cause to go', 'to escort' or 'to get into possession'. No doubt it does mean physical taking, but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word 'entice' seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take many forms, difficult to visualise and describe exhaustively; some of them may be quite subtle, depending for their success on the mental state of the person at the time when the inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some Digitally signed by time, in achieving its ultimate purposes of ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA successful inducement. The two words 'takes' NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 and 'entices', as used in Section 361 IPC are in 15:57:55 +0530 our opinion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 8 of 16 completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence as defined in Section 361 IPC."
16. For proving an offence of kidnapping it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the minor child was taken out from the custody of lawful guardianship. The version of the prosecution against accused Shamim is that accused Shamim has been directly named by the prosecutrix as the person who had extended her threats after she was kidnapped by accused Sanjida. Further, accused Sanjida has been directly named in the FIR by the complainant as the kidnapper and the initial information of the kidnapping was lodged by mother of the victim vide DD No. 06A on 24.02.2008. Hence, the star witnesses of the prosecution are victim, complainant and mother of the victim; and their testimony requires a careful scrutiny.
17. However, prosecution has only examined victim/PW1 and her mother as PW4 and has not examined father of the victim as he expired during the trial and was consequently dropped from the list of witnesses.
18. Perusal of record shows that as per the version of the prosecution the girl went missing on 24.02.2008, however, FIR in the present matter was lodged on 10.05.2008, whereby accused Sanjida was directly named in the FIR by the complainant and the victim was recovered on 30.06.2009 and her Digitally signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 15:58:00 +0530 State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 9 of 16 statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 03.07.2009.
19. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 shows that while deposing in court, she has stated that she was taken from her home while she was doing household work by accused and Sanjida and she stayed at their home as it was very late. Further, when she was cross-examined by the Ld. APP, she has admitted that the accused persons threatened to kill her father when she made a fuss about the home and she has denied that she was taken by Sanjida while coming back from school. In her cross- examination, she has admitted that she has not told to the police that Sanjida had taken her from her home. The statement made by PW1 in the court when perused carefully shows that she has not raised any allegations against accused Shamim except the fact that he and Sanjida took her from her home. It is only upon the cross-examination by the Ld. APP that she has deposed against accused Shamim regarding the threat extended by him. Perusal of the statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim shows that she has stated that she was taken by Sanjida while coming back from school and in the evening husband of Sanjida threatened her to kill her father when she created a ruckus about going home.
20. Further, PW1 in her examination in chief has stated that from Jaipur she had come to Gurgaon from where she walked to Punjabi Bagh and from where she made a police call Digitally after borrowing a phone from a chowkidar, however, no such fact signed by ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 15:58:05 +0530 State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 10 of 16 has been disclosed by her in her statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. Perusal of her statement u/S 164 Cr.PC. shows that she has stated that upon reaching Gurgaon she was sent to child line upon court orders and thereafter she alongwith some other girls ran from an Ashram after which she reached Delhi from where officials of PS-Punjabi Bagh brought her to PS-New Usmanpur alongwith her parents.
21. PW4 i.e. mother of the victim has stated that the victim was present at the house when Sanjida came there and she was not able to find her daughter after Sanjida left and thereafter they lodged missing complaint of her daughter at PS. It was when after coming home that she was crying that some women came to her house and told her that a woman in burka has took her daughter and is now residing at 2nd Pushta, New Usmanpur and the fact that Sanjida had brought one girl in the night and later on taken her to unknown place at 6:00 AM was also confirmed by landlord of Sanjida.
22. A careful examination of the testimony of PW4 shows that no allegation has been raised by her against accused Shamim and she has deposed contrary to the version of PW1 wherein she has stated that only Sanjida had come to her house but PW1 has stated that Sanjida and Shamim both had come to her house and taken her along.
Digitally signed by ANMOL 23. Further, this court is unable to reconcile with the fact ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 15:58:10 +0530 State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 11 of 16 that when the name of Sanjida was disclosed by unknown woman and the factum of kidnapping was confirmed by landlord of Sanjida on the day of kidnapping itself, why no police complaint by name has been given for a period of three months. Further, the said landlord and the said lady have never been made to join the investigation or cited as witness in the court.
24. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under:-
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as Digitally signed by effaced, or washed off the record ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA altogether. The same can be accepted to NOHRIA the extent that their version is found to be Date:
2025.05.14 15:58:15 +0530 dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
25. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witness can be relied in part. Though, PW1 has raised specific allegation of confinement and threats against the accused Shamim, however, her testimony cannot be read in isolation when her testimony as a whole does not inspire the confidence of State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 12 of 16 the court in view of the glaring differences and improvements and contradictions in the version of PW1 and PW4 as to how and when the incident happened and who is responsible for the same. As such, their testimonies cannot be looked without a shadow of doubt. As such, the testimony of PW1 and PW4 are insufficient to convict the accused Shamim for the offences charged.
26. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of caution laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis Digitally signed by then the accused must have the benefit of that ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA hypothesis. But in assessing the evidence NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 imaginary possibilities have no place. What is 15:58:22 +0530 to be considered are ordinary human probabilities."
27. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 13 of 16 pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a 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."
28. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:-
"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 Digitally signed by doubt, because everything relating to human ANMOL ANMOL NOHRIA affairs and depending upon moral evidence is NOHRIA Date: open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is 2025.05.14 15:58:27 +0530 that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 14 of 16 consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
29. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) 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 Digitally signed by ANMOL consideration of all the evidence in a fair and ANMOL NOHRIA reasonable way. There must be a candid NOHRIA Date:
2025.05.14 15:58:32 consideration of all the evidence and if, after +0530 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."
30. Considering the aforesaid infirmities and inconsistencies in the prosecution version, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences punishable under section 363/365/34, 506/34 & 342/34 IPC against accused Shamim S/o Hafijullah. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. In view of no substantive evidence against the accused as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Shamim S/o Hafijullah is acquitted for the offence under section 363/365/34, State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 15 of 16 506/34 & 342/34 IPC. His bail bond stands cancelled and surety stands discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedANMOL by ANMOL NOHRIA NOHRIA 15:58:41 Date: 2025.05.14 +0530 Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA) Court on 14th May, 2025 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTS State vs. Sanjida & Anr. FIR No. 111/08 PS New Usmanpur Page 16 of 16