Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Harjindra Singh Etc. – Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2811-2812 of 2024
Decided On : 27-05-2026
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364A/368 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Kidnapping of child for ransom – Life imprisonment – Prosecution was successful to establish respective role of each accused – Recovery of victim directly ensuing from his confessional disclosure to police, corroborated by ocular testimony of victim’s sisters – Trial Court recorded order of acquittal in favour of co-accused persons, whereas there was sufficient legal evidence against appellants – Acquittal of co-accused has no bearing on appellants’ culpability – Abducted child being treated without physical cruelty during illegal detention does not absolve kidnappers of initial violent abduction at pistol point, nor does it extinguish terror inflicted upon victim’s family – Present case features unshaken, corroborative oral testimonies from multiple witnesses proving ransom demand – Lack of CDR from a rural telephone exchange in 2003 cannot be permitted to paralyze criminal justice system when substantive oral evidence remains cogent, credible, and completely unimpeached – Direct recoveries under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act completely negate necessity of a formal TIP and establish appellants’ guilt irrefutably – Prosecution has successfully woven a seamless chain of evidence against appellants. (Paras 13, 17, 19, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 33)
(B) Criminal Law – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Evidentiary value – TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence; it is merely corroborative – Where witness had chance to interact with accused or that in a case where witness had opportunity to notice distinctive features of accused which lends assurance to his testimony in Court, evidence of identification in Court for first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test identification parade was held – Absence of TIP is not fatal if accused is sufficiently described or arrested immediately after occurrence. (Para 26)
Facts of the case:
High Court did not find any illegality in order of conviction and sentence granted by Sessions Court awarded to appellants in these two connected appeals and High Court held that conviction is not based solely about the confessional statement of Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 5035 of 2006. High Court upheld conviction and sentence of both the appellants under Section 364A I.P.C.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court and High Court of judicature at Allahabad have appreciated evidence in its correct perspective. Conviction is based on a sound legal footing and profound factual analysis.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The abduction involved use of a firearm at 6:30 am and a threat to the victim, satisfying the second condition for Section 364A IPC as interpreted in the judgment. (!) - The ransom demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs was proven through oral testimonies of the family and the Investigating Officer, with corroboration from multiple witnesses. (!) (!) (!) - The identity and active roles of the appellants were established by dock identification and by recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (living child recovered on Dilbag Singh’s disclosure; weapon recovered on Harjindra Singh’s disclosure). (!) (!) - The defense claim of false implication due to enmity was rejected; no specific motive or enmity was shown in Section 313 statements. (!) - The jail-visit of the victim’s mother and sister to meet Harjindra Singh, with eatables, was found not to be a plausible basis to discard credible evidence. (!) (!) - The High Court’s reappreciation of evidence was found sound, sustaining conviction and life sentences. (!) (!) (!) - Absence of a formal test identification parade was not fatal given immediate arrest, description of accused, and recoveries tied to disclosures. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment upholds conviction under Sections 364A and 368 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act for Harjindra Singh; life sentences affirmed. (!) - The abated appeal for one co-accused due to death does not affect the convictions of the remaining appellants. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual matrix and chain of causation in kidnapping. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. contending parties' arguments regarding witness credibility and evidentiary burden. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. assessment of witness testimony and parity in the conviction of co-accused. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. interpretation of section 364a ipc requirements and corroboration through section 27 evidence act. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. evaluating circumstantial evidence and final confirmation of conviction. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present appeals are being preferred before this Hon’ble Court against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 5483 of 2006 ( Harjindra Singh Vs. State of U.P. ) and in Criminal Appeal No. 5035 of 2006 ( Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu Vs. State of U.P. ), whereby the High Court was pleased to dismiss the Criminal Appeals filed by the appellants by upholding the judgment & order of conviction passed by Ld. Trial Court. The appellants are undergoing sentence of life imprisonment awarded by Ld. Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1 District Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 790 of 2003 under Sections 364A/368 of IPC.
BRIEF FACTS
2. A first information report was lodged by Kuldeep Singh at police station Puranpur, District Pilibhit on 05.08.2003 at 12.30 p.m. regarding an occurrence alleged to have taken place at 6:30 a.m. that day. According to the report, the first informant's son was going to school along with his sisters on bicycles. Two unknown persons came on a Rajdoot motorcycle and stopped the children at pistol point. They forcibly lifted the first informant's 8 years’ old son, Satnam Singh and drove away. On the cries of the sisters, Dr Majid Ali, Arshad Ali and a neighbour Manjit Singh came on the spot and chased the accused on motorbikes, who managed to escape into the jungle via village Lah Muzzafarpur and Bhaipur.
3. During investigation, on 08.08.2003, the police, on the pointing out of accused Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu, recovered the abductee from village Nadia Pouriya (Bhopatpur), Police station Kutar, District Shahjahanpur from a hut like house. The abductee was found in the western room of this house sitting with a woman on a cot. The child, on being questioned stated that he is Satnam Singh. He also stated that the criminals had detained him in this room and the woman and another man whom the woman referred to as Pappu used to guard him. They had taken off his clothes and had hidden them. The woman disclosed her name as Dalveer Kaur and the name of her associate as Avtar Singh alias Pappu.
4. On being asked for, she produced the clothes of the child. The child also stated that he was asked to play with toys in the room and a swing was also placed there. In the process of investigation, the Investigating Agency recovered clothes (school uniform) from Dalveer Kaur and recovered wooden swings and some toys. The items recovered were sealed and memos prepared. The child was given in the custody of his father, the first informant. On 03.09.2003, a .315 bore country made pistol and two live cartridges were recovered on the pointing out of Harjindra Singh, whose police remand had been obtained. This recovery was from a bush near a pipal tree in the jungle. A recovery memo was duly prepared. The investigation concluded in filing charge sheet against the accused persons namely, Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu, Harjindra Singh, Dalveer Kaur, Jassa Singh, Avtar Singh and Jagtar Singh. A chargesheet under Section 25 of the Arms Act was filed against Harjindra Singh for commission of offences under Sections 364A and 368 IPC.
5. A separate chargesheet under Sections 364A and 368 IPC was filed against Bahaar Ali. Upon committal, the Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 364A and 368 IPC against the six accused. A charge under Section 25 of t
The court emphasized that lack of essential documentation and procedural compliance invalidates the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused who were convicted of kidnapping for ra....
The judgment establishes the importance of witness identification, corroborating evidence, and the interpretation of legal provisions in establishing guilt and upholding convictions in criminal cases....
The prosecution's failure to establish the fundamental elements of kidnapping and ransom resulted in the High Court overturning the convictions due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
The prosecution must prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established is the reliance on the victim's testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, to establish the guilt of the accused in a case of abduction for ransom. The court als....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
