The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment awarded to two accused in a kidnapping-for-ransom case involving the abduction of an 8-year-old schoolboy at gunpoint in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale ruled that the prosecution had successfully proved all essential ingredients of the offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, including threat to life and demand for ransom.
According to the prosecution case, the incident occurred on August 5, 2003, when the victim, Satnam Singh, an 8-year-old student, was going to school with his sisters on bicycles. Two men arrived on a Rajdoot motorcycle, stopped the children at pistol point, forcibly abducted the child, and fled towards the jungle area. The victim’s sisters raised alarm, following which local persons attempted to chase the kidnappers, but they managed to escape.
During investigation, the police recovered the kidnapped child from a hut in Shahjahanpur district on the pointing out of accused Dilbag Singh. The child was allegedly found under the watch of co-accused Dalveer Kaur and another person identified as Avtar Singh alias Pappu. The police also recovered the victim’s school uniform, toys, and a swing from the location. Subsequently, a .315 bore country-made pistol and live cartridges were recovered on the pointing out of Harjindra Singh.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 364A IPC, particularly the element of threat and demand for ransom. They contended that there was no documentary proof such as call detail records or electronic evidence to prove the alleged ransom demand of Rs. 5 lakhs. Reliance was placed on earlier Supreme Court judgments including Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana and Willian Stephen v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The appellants further argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and that the prosecution relied primarily upon interested witnesses, namely the father and sisters of the abducted child. It was also contended that the child had admitted during evidence that he was treated with affection during captivity and was never threatened with death or hurt.
Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the use of a firearm to stop and abduct young children itself constituted a grave threat sufficient to attract Section 364A IPC. The Bench observed that brandishing a pistol at school-going children and forcibly taking away the victim squarely satisfied the statutory requirement relating to threat or apprehension of death or hurt.
On the issue of ransom demand, the Court noted that the victim’s sisters and father consistently testified that a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs had been made through a telephone call on the day of the kidnapping. The Investigating Officer had also corroborated that the complainant informed him about the ransom call during investigation. The Court held that absence of call records from 2003 could not demolish otherwise credible oral evidence.
The Court also rejected the challenge relating to identification of the accused. It observed that the kidnapping took place in broad daylight and the victim’s sisters had ample opportunity to observe the accused during the incident. More importantly, the Court emphasized that the recovery of the abducted child at the instance of Dilbag Singh and recovery of the weapon at the instance of Harjindra Singh constituted highly incriminating evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Addressing the defence argument that some co-accused had been acquitted, the Court clarified that acquittal of certain accused does not automatically entitle other accused to acquittal where strong and distinct evidence exists against them. The Bench noted that the evidence against the appellants stood on a much stronger footing due to direct eyewitness testimony and recovery evidence.
The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of evidence proving the kidnapping, use of deadly weapon, ransom demand, and involvement of both appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court upheld the convictions under Sections 364A and 368 IPC, along with the conviction of Harjindra Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sustained the sentence of life imprisonment.
Case Details
Case Title: Harjindra Singh Etc. Versus The State Of U.P.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1451-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(S). 2811-2812/2024
Date: 27/05/2026
