Criminal appeals in Delhi can outlive the circumstances that produced them. On 18 September 2026, Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav of the High Court of Delhi decided Jahangir v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 409/2009 — an appeal against a conviction recorded when the appellant was barely an adult. The Court affirmed the conviction under Sections 363 and 368 of the IPC for kidnapping and wrongful confinement of a girl aged fifteen to sixteen, but declined to send the appellant back to prison, releasing him instead on probation for two years on a bond of ₹25,000.
The facts
A girl of fifteen or sixteen left home after a quarrel with her mother and travelled to Delhi in search of her aunt. The appellant, whom she knew from an earlier visit, offered to escort her to her aunt\'s house. Instead, he took her to a rented room in Sapna Building and confined her there overnight, locking the room when he went out. The trial court convicted him of kidnapping and wrongful confinement but acquitted him of rape; the appeal, filed in 2009, was decided seventeen years later.
The conviction: why it stood
On the kidnapping count, the appeal ran into the settled law of Section 361 IPC: taking a minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian is complete upon the taking, and the minor\'s consent is no answer. The Court put it directly — once the prosecutrix is under eighteen, "even if her consent was there, it becomes immaterial and the offence of kidnapping stands constituted." The appellant\'s conduct — luring her by a false promise of escort and then confining her — satisfied both Sections 363 and 368.
The sentence: why it changed
Appellate courts sentence the person before them, not the person who committed the offence years earlier. Four factors converged here:
Probation in appellate practice
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 — and the parallel power now found in Section 401 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 360 CrPC) — permits courts to release suitable offenders on a bond of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, in offences not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The power belongs to appellate courts as fully as to trial courts, and old appeals are its natural field: the record of the intervening years is itself the best evidence of whether the offender needs a prison or a bond.
The practice point
Counsel arguing long-pending appeals should prepare a sentencing file distinct from the merits file: proof of the appellant\'s age at the time of offence, the family and employment history since, the absence of subsequent involvement, and custody already undergone. Where the conviction is likely to survive, the realistic battlefield is Section 401 BNSS and the Probation of Offenders Act — and courts, as this judgment shows, respond to a properly documented reformation case even while affirming guilt.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What had the trial court held?
The appellant was convicted under Section 363 IPC (kidnapping from lawful guardianship) with three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹2,000, and under Section 368 IPC (wrongful confinement of a kidnapped person) with four years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹2,000, sentences to run concurrently. He was acquitted of the rape charge under Section 376 IPC.
Why did consent of the girl not matter to the conviction?
Because she was a minor. The Court reiterated the settled position: "Once the age of prosecutrix is found to be less than 18 years of age, then, even if her consent was there, it becomes immaterial and the offence of kidnapping stands constituted." Taking a minor out of lawful guardianship, including by luring or misrepresentation, completes the offence irrespective of her willingness.
What justified probation instead of imprisonment?
The appellant's youth — he was around eighteen at the time — the absence of force or weapons, the acquittal on the sexual-assault charge, and the nearly two decades that had passed since the incident. The Probation of Offenders framework permits release on a bond of good conduct in fit cases, and the combination of these factors made re-imprisonment serve no reformative purpose.
Does long pendency of an appeal by itself reduce a sentence?
Not automatically, but it is a recognised mitigating circumstance in appellate sentencing. Where the convict has rebuilt a life over many years without further offence, courts weigh the diminished utility of incarceration against the settled expectation of finality — often resulting in reduction to the period undergone or release on probation, while the conviction stands.