The Delhi High Court has allowed an appeal filed by Nazre Alam @ Ravi and his wife Noorjahan, holding that their conviction under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to establish the required knowledge that the prosecutrix had been kidnapped or abducted.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav delivered the judgment on September 16, 2026, in Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 2012.
Background
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the prosecutrix at Burari Police Station in July 2011. According to the prosecution case, she had been brought to Delhi after being allegedly lured with a promise of marriage and was subsequently subjected to sexual exploitation.
The trial court had convicted Nazre Alam and Noorjahan under Section 368 IPC and sentenced them to two years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000 each. Nazre Alam had, however, been acquitted of charges under Sections 373 and 376(2)(g) IPC.
The High Court closely examined the prosecutrix’s different statements. Although she later gave evidence favourable to the appellants, the Court considered her earlier police statement, medical history and statement recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Court also noted serious problems with the preservation of the foetus collected during the investigation. According to the FSL evidence, Formalin had been used for preservation, making DNA profiling impossible from the relevant samples.
The Court observed that a hostile witness’s evidence cannot simply be discarded in its entirety and that the reliable portions may still be considered after careful scrutiny.
The central issue was whether the prosecution had proved the knowledge required under Section 368 IPC. The provision applies where a person knowingly conceals or confines someone who has been kidnapped or abducted.
The High Court stated,
“Knowledge of the victim being kidnapped is a very crucial and integral part to be proved in order to bring home a case under Section 368 IPC.”
The Court explained that the prosecution had to establish three elements: that the person had been kidnapped or abducted, that the accused knew about it, and that the accused thereafter wrongfully concealed or confined the person with such knowledge.
Despite the Court’s observations regarding the circumstances surrounding the prosecutrix and her subsequent testimony, it held that the necessary evidence showing that the appellants had knowledge of her kidnapping or abduction was absent.
The Court therefore concluded that the conviction under Section 368 IPC could not be sustained.
The appeal was allowed, pending applications were disposed of, and the appellants’ bail bonds were ordered to stand discharged.
A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Trial Court and prison authorities for compliance.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nazre Alam @ Ravi & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: CRL.A. 904/2012
Judge: Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
-300x169.webp)
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
