Delhi District Court
State vs Pabit Devi @ Poonam Devi on 27 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019
STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI
FIR NO. 969/14
PS KM PUR
U/S 363/342 IPC
JUDGMENT
A CNR NO. DLSE020242912019
B Name of the Sahab Prasad
Complainant S/o Shri Lalji Shah
C Name of the accused Pabit Devi @ Poonam Devi
& his parentage and w/o Sh. Lal Babu
address r/o H.no. 106, Hari Nagar, PO-
Sikta, Distt. West Champaran,
Bihar.
D Offence charged 363/342 IPC
E Date of commission of 06.11.2014
offence
F Date of Institution 22.05.2019
G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
H Order Reserved on 02.05.2025
I Date of 27.05.2025
Pronouncement
J Final Order Acquitted
Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 1 OF11
STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI
FIR NO. 969/14
Digitally signed
PS KM PUR SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
U/S 363/342 IPC NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.27
16:45:18 +0530
Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Accused with Ld. Counsel Ms. Seema Mishra.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 06.11.2014, at about 3.00 am, at H.no. 1793-C, Prasadi Gali, KM Pur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS KM Pur, accused Pabit Devi @ Poonam Devi kidnapped Jyoti Kumari ( a minor aged 13 years, under 18 years old), and wrongfully confined her and thereby accused has committed offences punishable u/s 363/342 IPC.
2. This case was registered on the written statement of complainant Shri Sahab Prasad, father of victim who told that he works as a house keeping and his daughter namely Jyoti Kumari, aged about 13 years is missing from home since 06.11.2014 at around 3.00 am. He further stated that he had suspicion that someone had lured her and taken her away and legal action should be taken against the said person.
3. On the basis of complaint made to police, present FIR was registered for offence u/s 363 IPC and information with respect to missing of victim was uploaded on ZIP NET and WT message, Hue and Cry notices were issued. However, during the course of investigation, on 11.11.2014, complainant had come to PS and Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 2 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KM PUR NIRMAL 16:45:22 +0530 Date: 2025.05.27 U/S 363/342 IPC produced his missing daughter namely Jyoti and told the IO that he has brought his victim daughter from Kapashera police station and her aunt/bua Poonam had taken her away. Thereafter, victim Jyoti was produced in the court and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded before the court. Thereafter, medical examination of victim Jyoti was conducted in AIIMS hospital vide MLC no. 17175/2014, however, she refused to get her internal examination done and told that nothing wrong had been happened with her. Thereafter, victim Jyoti was produced before CWC and thereafter, victim Jyoti was handed over to her father. Thereafter, IO interrogate the victim Jyoti, however, she denied to have knowledge of the place where her bua/aunt had taken. Accused Pabit Devi @ Poonam was also interrogated, however, she also denied to such incident ever occurred. Nothing could be revealed against other two persons. Accused Pabit Devi @ Poonam was bound down. After completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 363/342 IPC was forwarded to the Court against the accused Pabit Devi @ Poonam.
4. After taking cognizance of the offence by the court, the accused was summoned. Pursuant to her appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. copy of chargesheet was supplied to accused and a prima facie case against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 363/342 IPC was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 18.09.2019, formal charge for commission of offence Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 3 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 PS KM PUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:45:25 +0530 Date: 2025.05.27 U/S 363/342 IPC punishable under Section 363/342 IPC was framed against the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Ms. Jyoti (victim)
ii) PW-2 Inspector Prem Singh (police witness/Duty
Officer)
iii) PW-3 Sh. Sahab Prasad (complainant)
iv) PW4 Inspector Kailash Chand (1st IO)
v) PW5 Inspector Durga Das (2nd IO)
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) Tehrir Ex. PW2/A,
2) statement of complainant Sahab Prasad as Ex. PW3/A,
3) Handing over memo of victim as Ex. PW3/B,
4) application for recording 164 Cr.P.C of victim as Ex. PW4/A,
5) letter for producing victim before CWC asEx. PW4/B,
6) statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C of victim as Ex. PW4/C,
7) interrogation report of accused as Ex. PW4/D.
7. In addition to the above-mentioned witnesses, accused also Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 4 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KM PUR NIRMAL 16:45:31 +0530 Date: 2025.05.27 U/S 363/342 IPC admitted factum of registration of FIR No. 969/1, corresponding endorsement on rukka and statement u/s 164 Cr.p.C as Ex. A1 to A3 respectively in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C vide order dated 29.04.2023, hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating circumstances led against him during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to him, affording him an opportunity to give his explanation, if any. Accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, accused preferred not to lead defence evidence and therefore, DE was closed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
9. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and minutely. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the ld. APP for the state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
10. So far charge U/s 363 IPC is concerned it provides that:
Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 5 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 Digitally signed by PS KM PUR SEEMA SEEMA NIRMAL U/S 363/342 IPC NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.27 16:45:36 +0530 either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
For better appreciation section 359, 360, 361 IPC which provides definition of kidnapping, kidnapping from India, kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship are reproduced as under:
Section 359 IPC - Kidnapping is of two kinds Kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
Section 360 IPC - Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India.
Section 361 IPC - 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.
11. PW-1 Jyoti, who is alleged victim in present case has stated in statement under section 164 Cr.P.C that 5 days back, she was sleeping in room of her Bua(paternal aunt) and when she came out of Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 6 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 Digitally signed PS KM PUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:45:40 Date: 2025.05.27 U/S 363/342 IPC +0530 the room, her Bua's relative Poonam was standing outside who asked her to go somewhere and then victim changed her clothes. Accused Poonam gave her handkerchief to clean her face which was smelling bad and then took her in an auto somewhere. She further stated that in a room two persons were there and accused Poonam to left her in that room, those two persons held her on which she shouted and then these two persons left her. Five days after which she ran away. However in the testimony in court, she has stated that she was too young and she does not remember what happened then or where she went or the dates of the places, that she does not remember whether she had given any statement before the court, on which Ld. APP for the State sought permission to cross-examine her as she was not supporting the case of the prosecution. In her cross-examination by learned APP for the State, she refused to identify accused in the court. She was further confronted with a statement under section 164 CrPC (Mark A) which she refused in total. She further deposed that she was too young and due to lapse of time she does not remember. She failed to identify her signatures on statement under section 164 CrPC (Mark A). In the cross-examination by learned counsel for accused, she has stated that accused had not committed any offence against her.
12. The object of Section 363 IPC 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 Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 7 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 Digitally signed PS KM PUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL U/S 363/342 IPC NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.27 16:45:44 +0530 taking or enticing of a minor under the ages specified in this section, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian. The words "takes or entices any minor ..... out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor" in Section 361, are significant. The use of the word "Keeping" in the context connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control; further the guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with the independence of action and movement in the minor, the guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity arises.
13. In the present case, it is alleged by the prosecution that victim Jyoti was a minor on the date of the incident however nor any document has been placed on record to prove the same neither the fact of her minority is established or tried to be established on record. In the background of the facts of the case and evidences placed on record, it is to be seen if ingredients of section 363 IPC are attracted or not. In my considered opinion answer is 'NO'. Although, it is not denied by the accused that on the date when incident took place victim Jyoti was minor but that itself is not sufficient to reach at a conclusion that accused had enticed or taken away the victim Jyoti from lawful guardianship of her parents. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 8 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 PS KM PUR Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL U/S 363/342 IPC NIRMAL 16:45:49 Date: 2025.05.27 +0530 onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
14. Further present case is registered on statement of PW3/complainant Sahab Prasad Ex. PW3/A. In which he has Stated that he works as a house-keeping in Metro and his daughter namely Jyoti Kumari, aged about 13 years is missing from home since 06.11.2014 at around 3.00 am. He further stated that he had suspicion that someone had lured her and taken her away and legal action should be taken against the said person. However in his testimony in court he has stated that on 08/11/2014, he had given a complaint regarding his daughter gone missing. After 2-3 days the police had found his daughter and she was handed over to him. He has further stated that he does not know as to who had taken away his daughter and therefore he cannot identify the accused. He has further stated that his daughter had not revealed to him as to who had kidnapped her at that time and what offence had been committed against her. He has further stated that she must have lost her way and gone missing. However PW4 Inspector Kailash Chand has deposed in his examination in chief that on 11/11/2014, Sahab Prasad (father of the missing girl Ms. Jyoti) produced her before him at police station. Thus, there is clear contradiction between testimony of PW4 Inspector Kailash and PW2/complainant as to the factum of finding of missing girl/victim Jyoti and the course of events does not seem to be natural.
Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 9 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI Digitally signed FIR NO. 969/14 SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KM PUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.27 16:45:53 +0530 U/S 363/342 IPC
15. So far as charge U/s 342 IPC is concerned, it provides punishment for wrongful restraint and therefore it is necessary to go through the section 339 IPC which provided the definition of wrongful restraining:
Section 339 stipulates as under: "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceedings in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person."
16. Prosecution has failed to put on record any evidence from which it can be inferred that wrongful restraint was employed upon victim, to any stretch of imagination. It is only in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C Mark A that she has stated that accused had left her in room with two persons. The names of those persons have not been mentioned anywhere in the chargesheet. In her testimony in court victim has failed to depose about the incident and clearly stated in the cross-examination that accused has not committed any offence against. No other independent witness has been examined by the prosecution with respect to the same . Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.
17. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on 'Anil s/o Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 10 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 Digitally signed PS KM PUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.27 U/S 363/342 IPC 16:45:57 +0530 Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541'.
18. In the light of above discussion and reasons, this Court is of the considered view that evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and is discrepant on the material aspects of this case. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the Court beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts. In the instant case prosecution has failed to prove its case and as such while extending the benefit of doubt to the accused, she is hereby acquitted of the charges leveled against her by the prosecution. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal/revision. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.05.27
16:46:05 +0530
Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL)
Court on 27.05.2025 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/ 27.05.2025
It is certified by me that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page is digitally signed by me. Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:46:10 Date: 2025.05.27 +0530 (SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/27.05.2025 Cr CASES NO. 19880/2019 PAGE 11 OF11 STATE VS. PABIT DEVI @ POONAM DEVI FIR NO. 969/14 PS KM PUR U/S 363/342 IPC