The Delhi High Court has held that a person cannot be convicted under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongfully concealing or confining a kidnapped or abducted person unless the prosecution proves that the accused knew that the person had been kidnapped or abducted. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 884]

While setting aside conviction of two men, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav held that the essential element of knowledge was not established against them and consequently their conviction could not be sustained.

The case arose from an incident in which a young woman approached Police Station Burari alleging that she had been lured to Delhi on the promise of marriage, subsequently sold for Rs. 16,000 and forced into prostitution.

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

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

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

Before the High Court, the accused argued that there was no evidence to establish that they knew the woman was a victim of kidnapping or abduction.

The prosecutrix had, during her deposition before the Trial Court, given a clean chit to the accused and stated that she had been kept properly at their house and that nothing wrong had been done to her.

However, the prosecution pointed out that her earlier statement to the police, statement under Section 164 CrPC and history given to the doctor contained allegations implicating the accused.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court noted that the prosecutrix appeared to have turned hostile.

Referring to Section 368 of IPC, the Court noted that the prosecution must establish three essential ingredients: that the person was kidnapped or abducted; that the accused knew of such kidnapping or abduction; and that despite such knowledge, the accused wrongfully concealed or confined the person.

In the present case however, the Court found that the evidence did not establish that the accused had kept and confined the prosecutrix despite knowing that she was a victim of kidnapping or abduction.

It therefore held that the conviction under Section 368 of IPC could not be sustained.

Appearance: Mr. Javed Ahmad and Ms. Aakriti Aditya, Advs. for Appellants; Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State. Ms. Astha, Adv. DHCLSC with Ms. Megha Singh for the prosecutrix.

Case title: Nazre Alam @ Ravi & Anr v. State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 884

Case no.: CRL.A. 904/2012

Click here to read order