P&H HC Acquits Man Convicted Of Kidnapping 5½-Year-Old, Citing Uncle’s Testimony The Child Was Home Before FIR

Harsh, aged about 5½ years, lived with his maternal uncle, Rajinder Kumar (PW7).

The prosecution alleged that on 8 January 2007 the appellant took Harsh from school, and that the child was recovered from the appellant at Panipat Railway Station the following day.

An FIR was registered under Section 364-A IPC; the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability of the prosecution evidence, including the alleged recovery and the child’s identification of him

Section 363 IPC criminalises kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to its benefit

The Court cited no specific judicial precedents

The Court found that PW7 did not support the prosecution account: he testified that the child had returned home on 8 January 2007, before the alleged recovery and before the FIR was registered, and did not identify the appellant as responsible for the kidnapping

The police witnesses’ accounts of the journey from Panipat Railway Station were discrepant, and no independent witness or railway official was associated with the alleged recovery

Although PW8 identified the appellant in court, the Court considered that evidence alongside the other circumstances and found it insufficiently reliable to resolve the material doubts.

The absence of evidence of a ransom demand further weakened the prosecution case, though the alleged ransom was not an element of the Section 363 charge

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, and directed that his bail bonds be discharged in accordance with law