Nazre Alam @ Ravi & Anr. v. State, 2026

A young woman approached Police Station Burari, alleging that she had been lured to Delhi on the promise of marriage.

She alleged that she was subsequently sold for ₹16,000 and forced into prostitution.

The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 363, 372, 373, 376(g) and 344 read with Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the prosecutrix was subsequently brought to the house of the two accused, where she was confined and forced into prostitution.

The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 368 IPC and sentenced them to two years' rigorous imprisonment.

Before the High Court, the accused argued that there was no evidence establishing that they knew the prosecutrix had been kidnapped or abducted.

During her deposition before the Trial Court, the prosecutrix gave the accused a clean chit, stating that she had been properly kept at their house and that nothing wrong had been done to her.

The prosecution relied upon her earlier police statement, her statement under Section 164 CrPC, and the history allegedly given by her to the doctor, which contained allegations against the accused.

The High Court found that the prosecutrix had apparently turned hostile and examined whether the essential ingredients of Section 368 IPC had been established.

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the two accused under Section 368 IPC.

The Court held that Section 368 IPC requires the prosecution to establish knowledge on the part of the accused that the person had been kidnapped or abducted.

The Court identified three essential requirements:

• The person must have been kidnapped or abducted.

• The accused must have known about such kidnapping or abduction.

• Despite such knowledge, the accused must have wrongfully concealed or confined the person.

The evidence did not establish that the accused knew that the prosecutrix was a victim of kidnapping or abduction.

The earlier statements relied upon by the prosecution could not sufficiently establish the necessary element of knowledge against the accused.

Consequently, the conviction under Section 368 IPC could not be sustained.

The judgment emphasizes that Section 368 IPC contains a specific knowledge requirement that must be independently established by the prosecution.

The Court distinguished between the objective circumstance that a person may have been kidnapped or abducted and the accused's subjective knowledge of that circumstance.

The prosecution therefore cannot secure a conviction merely by establishing that the accused had possession or custody of a kidnapped or abducted person.

In the present case, the prosecutrix's deposition before the Trial Court did not support the prosecution's allegation against the accused and instead gave them a clean chit.

Although the prosecution relied upon her earlier statements, the High Court found that the evidence did not establish the crucial element that the accused knew of the alleged kidnapping or abduction.

The decision reinforces the principle that every statutory ingredient of an offence must be proved before criminal liability can be imposed.

The ruling is particularly significant for prosecutions under Section 368 IPC because it clarifies that knowledge cannot simply be presumed from the alleged act of concealment or confinement.