Sonu vs State Of Haryana

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)

SONU
.....Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
........Respondent

1. Date when Order was reserved 06.08.2026
2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 04.11.2026
3. Date of uploading order 12.11.2026
4. Whether operative part or full
FULL
order is pronounced
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of
Not Applicable
full order, and reasons thereof


CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA

Present: Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate,
Legal Aid Counsel,
for the appellant.

Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.



DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 19.11.2007 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2007,
vide which the appellant was convicted under Section 363 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2. The facts in brief, as per the case of prosecution are that
Harsh aged about 5½ years was residing with his maternal uncle Rajinder
Kumar since his birth as his mother had died at the time of his delivery.
SANDEEP KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
-1-

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)

On 08.01.2007 said Harsh, who was studying in J.D. Public School,
Madhuban did not return home from school. Upon inquiries, it was learnt
that he had allegedly been taken away in a three-wheeler by the appellant
Sonu by telling him that his father was calling him. Rajinder Kumar
made a complaint to the police on 09.01.2007 expressing suspicion
against the appellant on account of previous enmity. On the basis of the
said complaint, FIR No.4 dated 09.01.2007 under Section 364-A of IPC
was registered at Police Station Madhuban.

3. A trial was conducted wherein the prosecution examined 08
witnesses (PW1 to PW8) and closed its evidence. The statement of the
appellant was thereafter recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he
denied all the allegations levelled against him, pleaded false implication
and asserted his innocence. In his defence, the appellant examined 02
witnesses (DW1 and DW2) and closed the defence evidence. After
adjudication, the trial Court vide judgment dated 19.11.2007 convicted
the appellant and vide order of sentence dated 22.11.2007 sentenced the
appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for having committed an offence under
Section 363 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of
conviction, the appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court and is seeking his acquittal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable in law as
well as on facts as the case of prosecution suffers from material
SANDEEP KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
-2-

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)

contradictions and infirmities. He submits that as per application dated
09.01.2007 (Ex.P2), Rajinder Kumar (PW7) alleged that his nephew had
not returned from school on 08.01.2007, whereas in his deposition before
the Court he stated that two boys had brought Harsh on a motorcycle
from a medical store at Gharaunda to his residence at about 4:30 p.m. on
the same day. He further submits that PW7 disowned the allegations
made in the application, denied having any suspicion against the
appellant and stated that he had signed a blank paper. He denied that the
appellant had ever extended any threat or demanded money from him or
his family members.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per
the case of prosecution, the child was recovered from the appellant on
09.01.2007, whereas PW7 stated that the child had returned home on
08.01.2007 at about 5:00 p.m. He submits that there is a delay in lodging
the FIR. He further submits that the statements of the police officials
regarding the alleged recovery are discrepant as PW5 stated that they
returned from Railway Station, Panipat in a private jeep, whereas PW6
stated that they travelled by a Haryana Roadways Bus. Neither any
independent witness was joined at the time of the alleged recovery of the
child nor was the local GRP police informed or any entry made at the
concerned police station. He further submits that the testimony of child
witness Harsh (PW8) could not have been relied upon as he was not
capable of giving rational and intelligent answers and no test
identification parade was conducted. He has further argued that the
appellant is now 42 years of age and out of the substantive sentence
awarded, he has already undergone incarceration for a period of 01 year,
SANDEEP KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
-3-

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)

04 months and 07 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order
dated 14.05.2008 passed by this Court suspending the sentence during the
pendency of the present appeal. Therefore, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge
beyond reasonable doubt and prays that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be
acquitted.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the
prosecution has led sufficient and cogent evidence to establish that the
appellant had kidnapped minor Harsh, aged about 5½ years from the
lawful custody of his maternal uncle. She further submits that Rajinder
Kumar (PW7), maternal uncle of the child, identified the appellant and
even the child witness Harsh (PW8) categorically pointed towards the
appellant in Court and stated that he had taken him away in a tempo on
the pretext that his father was calling him. She further submits that the
statements of PW5 HC Satbir Singh and PW6 ASI Dilbag Singh duly
corroborate the prosecution version regarding the recovery of the child
from the possession of the appellant at Platform No.2 of Railway Station,
Panipat, on 09.01.2007. Therefore, learned State counsel submits that the
learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 363 IPC and that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence warrant no interference.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the record with their able assistance.

9. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence available on record,
this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the
SANDEEP KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
-4-

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW7 Rajinder
Kumar, the maternal uncle of the child, does not lend support to the
prosecution version regarding the alleged kidnapping and recovery of the
child from the possession of the appellant. Rather, he categorically stated
that the child had been brought to his residence by two boys on a
motorcycle on 08.01.2007 itself. The alleged recovery of the child from
the appellant at Railway Station, Panipat on 09.01.2007 also becomes
doubtful in view of the material discrepancies in the statements of the
police officials and the non-association of any independent witness or
railway official at the time of alleged recovery. Though, PW8 Harsh
identified the appellant in Court, his testimony when considered in the
light of the other evidence on record does not inspire sufficient
confidence to sustain the conviction. The aforesaid circumstances, when
taken cumulatively create a reasonable doubt regarding the involvement
of the appellant in the commission of the alleged offence. Further, it has
also come in the evidence of PW7 Rajinder Kumar that the appellant
never demanded any money or ransom from him for the release of the
child. The prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence
to establish that the appellant had raised any demand for money from
PW7. This circumstance further weakens the prosecution version
regarding the alleged kidnapping and assumes significance in the absence
of reliable evidence establishing the appellant’s involvement in the
occurrence. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that
the benefit of every reasonable doubt must enure to the accused.
SANDEEP KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
-5-

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)


10. Further, PW7 Rajinder Kumar alleged in his application
Ex.P2 that he had a quarrel with the appellant about three years earlier,
during which the appellant had threatened him with dire consequences
and on that basis, he suspected appellant’s involvement. However, while
deposing in his examination-in-chief, he did not express suspicion against
anyone regarding the kidnapping of the child and in his cross-
examination, he also admitted that the appellant had never threatened
him. According to the prosecution, the child was recovered from the
possession of the appellant on 09.01.2007, after the registration of the
FIR, however, PW7 Rajinder Kumar deposed that the child had returned
home on 08.01.2007 at about 5:00 p.m. i.e. before the registration of the
FIR. Thus, PW7 the sole independent witness, did not support the
prosecution version regarding the alleged recovery of the child from the
appellant’s possession on 09.01.2007.

11. As regards the alleged kidnapping of Harsh by the appellant,
PW7 Rajinder Kumar did not support the prosecution version and denied
the contents of the application Ex.P2. He was declared hostile.

12. Considering these circumstances cumulatively, this Court is
of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that the child was
recovered from the appellant’s possession on 09.01.2007 at Railway
Station, Panipat. The material contradictions concerning the child’s
return and his alleged recovery render the prosecution version doubtful.

13. Upon an overall assessment of the evidence, this Court finds
that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The
SANDEEP KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
-6-

CRA-S-92-SB-2008 (O&M)

appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt and his conviction
cannot be sustained.

14. Given the above discussion, the present appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the learned trial Cout are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
charge under Section 363 IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt. His
bail bonds shall stand discharged in accordance with law.

15. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also
disposed of as such.



04.11.2026
‘Sandeep’
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
SANDEEP KUMAR
2026.11.12 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment.
-7-