Case Title – C v.

State of Delhi

Statement of Facts
1. Before this Honorable Court, stands the complainant A, a resident of Jamia Nagar,
Delhi, alleging against the accused C, her distant relative, of grave offenses as per the
Indian Penal Code. The events leading to this complaint unfolded against the backdrop
of A's pregnancy with her second husband, B, during October 2022. A's husband, B,
had necessitated travel to Chennai for official engagements, leaving A vulnerable and
alone at home. During this period of vulnerability, the accused C, under the guise of
familial support, offered to stay with A until her delivery. A, seeking solace and
assistance during her husband's absence, welcomed C into her home. However, this
seemingly altruistic act transpired into a harrowing ordeal for A.

2. In July 2023, as A approached her due date and began experiencing labour pains, C,
entrusted with accompanying A to the hospital, diverted her to a different medical
facility, citing purported document-related issues at the initially planned hospital. A
underwent surgery at EFG Nursing Home on 08/07/23 due to complications during
delivery. Following the surgery, A was denied immediate access to her new born child.
C informed A that she had given birth to a baby boy but claimed an emergency
prevented A from seeing the child directly. Instead, A was shown photographs of the
infant. However, on 10/07/23, A's queries regarding her child's condition prompted C
to disclose that the child had died shortly after birth and had been buried.

3. In response to this distressing revelation, A promptly contacted emergency services and

subsequently filed a complaint against C, alleging kidnapping and sale of her child.
This complaint catalysed law enforcement to initiate an investigation and register an
FIR under sections 363 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code and a charge sheet regarding
the same was filed by the police.

4. This court thus, framed the charges and under sections 363 and 370 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 where the accused abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.
 Judgement
5. In the present case, the arguments of the defence is that C wanted to save the child and
that the complainant was aware about the whereabouts of the child. But through the PW
4 that is the investigating officer in the present case, it is quite clear that initially C was
reluctant to tell about the whereabouts of the child but later revealed about the custody
of the child with PW 1 and PW 2. This court is putting its reliance on the case of
Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar1, Asar Mohd. v. State of U.P.2, Sunita v. State of
Haryana3 and the case of Chintambaramma v. State of Karnataka4 where the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in relation to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 that ‘If the conduct of the accused in relation to the crime comes into the
question the previous and subsequent conduct and also relevant. Therefore, the absence
of ordinary course of the conduct of the accused and human probabilities of the case
would also be relevant. The court must weigh the evidence of the cumulative effect of
the circumstances and if it reaches the conclusion that the accused committed the crime,
the charge must be held proved and the conviction and sentence would follow. As in
the following case, the subsequent behaviour of C is clear that he was taking all possible
measures to prevent A from meeting his child. It is clear through the prosecution case
that A had falsely stated to C that there was an emergency situation in regards to child
of C and further that the child died after the birth and he buried it whereas PW 5 clearly
acknowledged the fact that the child when born was healthy.

6. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Veerendra v. State of M.P.5
had observed that ‘a conduct of the accused after the incident may become admissible
under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as to forming part of the same transaction, though
not is issue, if it is so connected with the fact in issue’. In the present case, as already
has been stated above, the conduct of the accused has become relevant and admissible
owing to his reluctant nature of disclosing about the whereabouts of the child of A and
giving false information to her regarding the same.

1
AIR 1992 SC 1175.
2
(2019) 12 SCC 253.
3
(2019) 14 SCC 258.
4
(2019) 17 SCC 208.
5
(2022) 8 SCC 668.
 7. Even if the case of the accused were to be accepted, the defence still failed to prove as
to from what C was trying to save the child and if he was really trying to save the child,
he would have never hesitated to tell about the whereabouts of the child to the
investigating officer and neither lied about the same to her mother that her child had
died. It is quite clear that the rule of strict interpretation has to be applied in the cases
of penal statutes which has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number
of cases.6 In the present case, referring towards the Section 363 of the Indian Penal
Code, it clearly uses the phrase ‘… out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such
minor…. without the consent of such guardian …’ and the same has been done by the
accused in the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjan Kapar
v. State of Bihar7 observed that ‘lawful guardian’ includes any person lawfully
entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person and in the instant case,
the child was in the lawful custody of the hospital after the birth. And since, the baby
was normal and healthy after the birth as confirmed by PW 5, the child was initially in
the ‘lawful guardianship’ of the hospital and afterwards he would be transferred to the
‘lawful guardianship’ of A.

8. The child was supposed to be in the care of the lawful guardianship of the hospital and
as soon as, the child was taken out of the possession of the hospital, the offence was
completed.. The motive of the accused in the present case is clearly irrelevant in the
present case and the reliance for the same is placed upon the case of Subodh Nath v.
State of Tripura8, Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan9 and the case of Pratap Singh
v. State of Jharkhand10 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that ‘motive
becomes relevant as an additional circumstance in a case where prosecution seeks to
prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence only….. but in cases of direct evidence,
motive becomes irrelevant.’ Furthermore, the only ingredient to satisfy the completion

6
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, AIR 2005 SC 2119; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015
SC 1523; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) SCC 569; Rosenbaum v. Burgoyne, (1964) 2 All ER 988;
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Schildkamp, (1969) 3 All ER 1640; Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of MP, AIR
1976 SC 133; State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar, AIR 1982 SC 949; Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana,
(2013) 2 SCC 212. See HKSAR v. Choi Wai Lun, (2018) 21 HKCFAR 167; HKSAR v. Luan Gang, [2018]
HKDC 811; State of Kerala v. Raneef, AIR 2011 SC 340; Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. v. Food Inspector,
(2011) 1 SCC 176.
7
(2005) 9 SCC 426.
8
(2013) 4 SCC 122.
9
(2009) 13 SCC 211.
10
(2005) 3 SCC 551.
 of offence under Section 363 is to take the minor child out of the lawful guardianship
which has been successfully been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the
Prosecution.

9. However, on the issue of the second charge i.e. Section 370, the Prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt. The ingredients of Section 370 are not
fulfilled as the Prosecution has failed to establish that the child was abducted from the
lawful guardianship of A for the purposes of exploitation as laid down in the section.
The case is relying on the case of Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra11 where the court
had observed that ‘as per Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the onus is on the
prosecution to establish the ingredients of offence’. In the present case, through the
statement of none of the prosecution witnesses, it has been made clear that the child
was taken out of the custody in order to fulfil any ulterior motive which would satisfy
the ingredients of Section 370 of IPC. Furthermore, through the statements of PW 1,
PW 2 and PW 3, it has been proved that the custody of the child was given to D and E
in order to take care of the child and he was also paying to them for the same. The
conduct of the accused is also relevant in this instance as it makes clear that there was
no intention on part of the accused to commit an offence under Section 370 of IPC.

Order of the Court

10. Thus, the court finds Mr. C guilty of the offence charged under Section 363 and
sentences him to a simple imprisonment of 6 months along with fine of Rs. 2000. And
the charge against Mr. C in respect of Section 370 is not sustained.

11
(1979) 2 SCC 143.