Delhi District Court
State vs Sonipal And Ors on 6 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 : SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 196/2024
CNR No. DLSW01-002952-2024
State Vs. (1) Sonipal
W/o Sh. Ram Murat
R/o - Room no. 20, Gali no. 1,
Gopal Ji Colony, Samalkha,
Kapashera, Delhi.
(2) Rani
W/o Sh. Rohit Singh
R/o - Kalu Ka Makaan, First
Floor, School wali Gali,
Dhundahera, Village,
Gurugram.
(3) Pankaj Kumar
S/o Sh. Yogender Mahto
R/o- Plot no. 801, Gali no. 1,
Gopal Ji Colony, Samalkha,
Kapashera, Delhi.
FIR No. : 580/2023
Police Station : Kapashera
Under Sections : 365/370/120B IPC & 81 J.J
Act
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 23.03.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 06.10.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 06.10.2025
Final order : Acquitted for the offences
u/s 365/370/120B IPC & 81
J.J Act .
FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 1 of 13
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The present case was registered on the complaint made by the complainant wherein she has stated that on 14.12.2023, she gave birth to a child and on 30.12.2023 at about 5:30 p.m, her neighbour Sonipal (who lives along with her husband and children) came to her house complaining about headache and asked the complainant to make tea by giving her Rs.20 to buy milk from the store in street. She further stated that when the complainant returned back to her house after 4-5 minutes, she did not find her son. She further stated that the complainant that since she was not married to her boyfriend and was expecting a child before marriage, accused Soni had earlier asked the complainant to sell the baby (to be born) in Rs.2,00,000/- to which the complainant and her mother refused and scolded accused Soni for the same.
2. Accordingly, the FIR was registered in the present case and during investigation, accused Sonipal and Pankaj were apprehended and disclosed that they have left the infant to one of their acquaintances Rani Singh and accordingly, at the instance of accused Sonipal and Pankaj, Child victim was recovered under the custody of accused Rani.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons before the Ld. concerned MM and the copies of charge sheet were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and thereafter, matter was committed to the Sessions Court on 23.03.2024 and charge under Section 365/370/120B IPC & 81 J.J Act was framed against them vide order dated 16.04.2024 on the allegations that on or before 30.12.2023 at around 06:30 FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 2 of 13 PM, all accused hatched criminal conspiracy to commit offence for kidnapping of infant baby boy of Bimli aged about 15 days for the purpose of selling of infant baby boy for potential buyer and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy both accused Sonipal and Pankaj kidnapped infant baby boy of Bimli from her lawful guardianship for the purpose of selling the same and handed over the infant baby boy to co-accused Rani singh for potential buyer. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused persons and in support of its case, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses.
5. PW-1 / Bimli /complainant who has deposed that she was residing at Samalka for last 5 years along-with her mother and husband and prior to above said house, they were residing as a tenant in the same locality. She further deposed that her sister Reena got married with Dheeraj during lockdown and they are residing at Gali no. 2 Samalka. She further deposed that her husband Akshay is working in a company at Airport. She further deposed that her husband Akshay is brother of Dheeraj. She further deposed that after the marriage of her sister Reena, she came in the touch of Akshay and after that they had made relations and due to that relations, she got pregnant and she delivered a baby boy "A" on 14 th day of the month before new year before marriage with Akshay and her mother looked after her baby. She further deposed that her mother was working at Airport at that time and the working hour of her mother was 10:00 AM to 07:30 PM. She further deposed that no such incident happened and due to some confusion she made the complaint. She further deposed that her baby was not stolen FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 3 of 13 by anyone, same was handed over to her another neighbour by her as she was inside the bathroom and she does not know anything about the present case and nobody took her child with bad intention.
6. At the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness was cross examined as she was resiling from her statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC, wherein she denied various suggestions given to her. She also completely exonerated the accused persons from the present case and has only identified them being the neighbours. She has specially deposed in her cross examination that police did not record her statement. She has specially denied the suggestion that her baby boy was recovered by police from Dhundahera Village, Gurugram. She denied the suggestion that her baby was stolen by accused Sonipal, with criminal conspiracy of accused Pankaj and Rani for selling the child. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons.
7. PW-2 is HC mahender Singh Yadav, who has deposed that on 30.12.2023, he was posted at PS Kapashera as Duty Officer and his duty timings were from 4.00 PM to 12 Midnight and at about 11.05 PM, Ct.
Ravinder had brought ruqqa which was sent by SI Priyanka, and on the basis of the same, he registered the FIR as Ex. PW2/A and after registration of the FIR, he made endorsement on the ruqqa, his endorsement is Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that he issued a certificate u/s 65 B of IE Act with regard to computerize FIR, as Ex. PW-2/C. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 06:46 PM, he received a call regarding "caller lady ka bacha ek lady utha k le gaye hai; jisne burka pehna hua hai; Paidal utha k bhag gye; pata ni kaha gye hai; ladke ki age 15 days". He further deposed that the said information was recorded by him in general dairy vide DD no.
FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 4 of 1397 A , as Ex. PW-2/D . He further deposed that on the same day, at about 07:12 PM he received DD No. 97 A was marked to SI Kamal Kant, later on same was marked to SI Priyanka, by the order of SHO with this regard, GD no. 100 A lodged, as Ex. PW-2/D. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsels.
8. PW-3 is Ct Ravinder who has deposed that on 30.12.2023, he was posted at PS Kapashera as constable. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith W/SI Priyanka, SI Jasbir and W /Ct Sunita and other police officials reached at the spot. He further deposed that after reaching at the spot, caller Bimli met and informed us that one lady namely Sonipal kidnapped her child, aged about 15 days. He further deposed that SI Priyanka recorded the statement of Complainant Bimli and prepared Rukka. Rukka was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to the PS and got registered the FIR no 580/23, through DO. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, DO handed over him, copy of FIR and original Rukka. He further deposed that he returned back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka to SI Priyanka. He further deposed that IO checked all CCTV footage, nearby spot and due to dark and fog, nothing was visible in CCTV footage. He further deposed that on 31.12.2023, IO inquired from the nearby from the spot that and during inquiry, they came to know that Sonipal with his boyfriends was residing in a transformer wali gali, thereafter, they immediately reached there and apprehended sonipal along-with his boyfriends, whose name revealed as Pankaj. He further deposed that on inquiry, both accused Sonipal and Pankaj disclosed their involvement and stated that they would leave the child at Dhundahera Village, Gurugram for sale. He further FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 5 of 13 deposed that both the accused Sonipal and Ravinder were arrested vide arrest memo as Ex. PW-3/ A 1 and Ex . PW-3/A2. He further deposed that personal search of accused Sonipal and Pankaj Kumar were conducted vide memo Ex. PW-3/B1 and Ex. PW-3/B2. He further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of accused persons, they reached at Dundahera and child victim was recovered, at the instance of accused persons, at that time the child was under the custody of accused Rani. He further deposed that mother of child victim namely Bimli, also identified her child and custody of child was handed over to his mother Bimli vide memo Ex. PW-3/C. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Rani was arrested and interrogated vide memo Ex. PW-3/D1 and personal search were conducted vide memo Ex. PW-3/D2. He further deposed that thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons Sonipal, Pankaj, and Rani vide memo Ex. PW-3/E1, Ex. PW-3/E2, Ex. PW-3/E3 respectively. He further deposed that thereafter, they brought the accused persons to the PS and after medical examination accused persons produced before the court and sent to JC and IO recorded his statement. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsels.
9. PW-4 is W/Ct Sunita. She was alongwith SI Priyanka, SI Jasbir and Ct. Ravinder and deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-3.
10. PW-5 is Smt. Sadna Vats, who has deposed that she is residing at above said address with her son and she has another house at Gopalji colony, which was given on rent. She further deposed that Ram Murat alongwith his wife Yashika Bansal alongwith Sonipal were residing in Room FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 6 of 13 no. 20 as a tenant. She further deposed that Bimli with her mother was also residing in the same house as a tenant. She further deposed that two rooms were constructed on the roof of the said house. She further deposed that Pankaj was also residing as a tenant in the room which was situated on the roof. She further deposed that she used to visit at the house at gopal ji colony for the purpose of rent and account. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsels.
11. PW-6 is W/SI Priyanka who has deposed that on 30.12.2023, she was posted at PS Kapashera as SI. She further deposed that he received a PCR call regarding theft of child. She further deposed that on that day, she alongwith SI Jasbir, W/SI Divya, Ct. Ravinder, W/Ct Sunita and other police officials reached at the spot. She further deposed that after reaching at the spot, caller Bimli met and informed them that one lady namely Sonipal kidnapped her child, aged about 15 days. She further deposed that she recorded the statement of Complainant Bimli and prepared Rukka as Ex. PW-6/A. She further deposed that Rukka was handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR. She further deposed that she prepared site plan, as Ex. PW-6/B. She further deposed that they inquired from the neighborhood, about the whereabouts of the kidnapped child and after registration of FIR, Ct. Ravinder returned back at the spot. She further deposed that she checked all CCTV footage, nearby spot and due to dark and fog, nothing was visible in CCTV footage. She further deposed that on 31.12.2023, in the morning, she inquired from the nearby from the spot that and during inquiry, they came to know that Sonipal with his boyfriend Pankaj was residing in a transformer wali gali, FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 7 of 13 thereafter, they immediately reached there and apprehended sonipal along- with his boyfriend, whose name revealed as Pankaj. She further deposed that on inquiry, both accused Sonipal and Pankaj disclosed their involvement and stated that they would leave the child at Dhundahera Village, Gurugram for sale. She further deposed that both the accused Sonipal and Pankaj were arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-3/ A 1 and Ex. PW-3/A2 and thereafter, Personal search of accused Sonipal and Pankaj Kumar were conducted vide memo as Ex. PW-3/B1 and Ex. PW-3/B2. She further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of accused persons they reached at Dundahera and child victim was recovered, at the instance of accused persons, at that time the child was under the custody of accused Rani. She further deposed that mother of child victim namely Bimli, identified her child and custody of child was handed over to his mother Bimli vide memo as Ex. PW-3/C. She further deposed that she prepared site plan of recovery of child, as Ex. PW-6/C. She further deposed that thereafter, accused Rani was arrested and interrogated vide memo as Ex. PW-3/D1 and personal search were conducted vide memo Ex. PW-3/D2 and thereafter, she recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons Sonipal, Pankaj, and Rani vide memo already Ex. PW-3/E1, Ex. PW-3/E2, Ex. PW-3/E3 respectively. This witness was cross examined by ld. defence counsels at length.
12. PW-7 is SI Jasbir Malik, who has deposed that on 30.12.2023, he was posted at PS Kapashera and WSI Priyanka received a PCR call regarding theft of child. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith W/SI Priyanka, W/SI Divya, Ct. Ravinder, W/Ct Sunita and other police FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 8 of 13 officials reached at the spot. He further deposed that that after reaching at the spot, caller Bimli met and informed them that one lady namely Sonipal kidnapped her child, aged about 15 days. He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of Complainant Bimli and prepared Rukka and Rukka was handed over to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, Ct. Ravinder returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and Rukka to W/SI Priyanka. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan, as Ex. PW-6/B. He further deposed that they inquired from the neighborhood, about the whereabouts of the kidnapped child. He further deposed that they checked all CCTV footage, nearby spot and due to dark and fog, nothing was visible in CCTV footage. He further deposed that on 31.12.2023, in the morning, they inquired from the nearby spot that and during inquiry, they came to know that Sonipal with his boyfriend Pankaj were residing in a transformer wali gali, thereafter, they immediately reached there and apprehended Sonipal along-with his boyfriend, whose name revealed as Pankaj. He further deposed that on inquiry, both accused Sonipal and Pankaj disclosed their involvement and stated that they would leave the child at Dhundahera Village, Gurugram for sale and both the accused Sonipal and Pankaj were arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-3/ A 1 and Ex. PW-3/A2. He further deposed that both accused Sonipal and Pankaj Kumar and Personal search of accused Sonipal and Pankaj Kumar were conducted vide memo already Ex. PW-3/B1 and Ex. PW-3/B2. He further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of accused persons they reached at Dundahera, Kalu Ka Makan, School wali Gali, 1 st floor, and child victim was recovered, at the instance of accused persons, at that time the child was under the custody of accused Rani. He further FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 9 of 13 deposed that mother of child victim namely Bimli, identified her child and custody of child was handed over to his mother Bimli vide memo as Ex. PW-3/C. He further deposed that he prepared site plan of recovery of child, as Ex. PW-6/C and thereafter, accused Rani was arrested and interrogated vide memo as Ex. PW-3/D1 and personal search were conducted vide memo already Ex. PW-3/D2. He further deposed that thereafter, IO recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons Sonipal, Pankaj, and Rani vide memo as Ex. PW-3/E1, Ex. PW-3/E2, Ex. PW-3/E3 respectively. He further deposed that thereafter, they brought the accused persons to the PS and after medical examination accused persons produced before the court and sent to JC. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsels.
13. PW-8 is W/SI Kavita who has deposed that on 15.01.2024, she was posted at PS Kapashera as SI and on that day, investigation of the present case was marked to her and she collected the case file from MHCR Kapashera. She further deposed that on 16.01.2024, she got extended JC remand of accused persons. She further deposed that on 20.01.2024, she served a notice u/s 91 Cr. PC upon owner, to provide CCTV footage of camera installed in the street which was crossed by accused Sonipal Singh, in reply of which, owner stated that only 7 day CCTV footage can be stored in the hard disk. She further deposed that on 06.02.2024, she served notice u/s 91 Cr. PC to M/s Chairman, CMO, HOD, Indira IVF fertility center, Patel Nagar as Ex. PW-8/A in which, Indira IVF give reply, as Ex. PW-8/B and thereafter, she prepared charge sheet and filed before the court. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsels.
FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 10 of 1314. It is also a matter of record that on 04.08.2025, after examining all the material witnesses, at request of Ld. Adll. PP for the state, the prosecution evidence was closed.
15. The statement of all accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 25.09.2025 wherein all accused submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they do not want to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
16. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsels for the all accused and have perused the record.
17. The record reveals that all accused are facing trial for the offences under Section 120B/365/370 IPC and 81 J J Act on the allegations that all accused hatched criminal conspiracy to commit offence for kidnapping of infant baby boy of Bimli aged about 15 days for the purpose of selling of infant baby boy for the purpose of selling the same and handed over the infant baby boy to co-accused Rani singh for potential buyer.
18. The perusal of the record shows that PW-1 Smt. Bimli (who is main eye witness and mother of infant baby boy) explicitly deposed that no such incident happened and due to some confusion she made the complaint. She further deposed that her baby was not stolen by anyone, same was handed over to her another neighbour by her as she was inside the bathroom and she does not know anything about the present case and nobody took her child with bad intention. Similarly, PW-5 Smt. Sadhana FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 11 of 13 Vats, who was landlord of house of accused Sonipal, has denied having any knowledge of the incident.
19. After a thorough evaluation of the evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the all accused persons as the testimony of the key prosecution witness i.e. complainant PW-1 Bimli has not supported the version of the prosecution. PW-1 significantly deviated from her previous statements and denied the role of the accused in the alleged incident and only identified them being neighbours. Her testimony was inconsistent and failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 120B/365/370 IPC & 81 J J Act. Moreover, PW-1 Bimli was an eyewitness, categorically denied the incident. Her testimony further weakened the case of the prosecution. The PW-1 was even cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but nothing material / substantive evidence could be extracted from the mouth of these witnesses. She has specifically denied that her baby boy was recovered by the police from Dundahera, Gurugram and has totally demolished the case of the prosecution as the witnesses have exonerated the accused from the incident in question. It is also the case of the prosecution that child victim was recovered, at the instance of accused persons, from the possession of accused Rani and mother of child victim identified her child and custody of child was handed over to PW-1 Bimli, however, PW-1 has denied all such facts. She has specially deposed that her baby was not stolen and there were some confusion as her baby was found on the same day. She has specially deposed that police obtained her thumb impression on some blank papers.
FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 12 of 13She denied that all accused were arrested in her presence.
20. Hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused hatched criminal conspiracy to commit offence for kidnapping of infant baby boy of Bimli aged about 15 days for the purpose of selling to potential buyer as required under Section 365/370 IPC and 81 J.J Act.
21. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the all accused beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly, benefit of doubt is required to be given to all the accused persons. Therefore, all accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 120B/365/370 IPC and 81 J.J Act.
22. All accused are directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each. At the request of all accused, their previous bail bonds are extended in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for six months from today.
23. File be consigned to Record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK WASON WASON Date:
2025.10.06 11:02:45 Announced in open Court today +0530 on 06.10.2025 (Deepak Wason) Additional Sessions Judge-04 South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 580/23 State Vs Sonipal & ORS Page 13 of 13