Court Affirms Allahabad High Court Judgment
The UP kidnapping for ransom case reached its conclusion after the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of Harjindra Singh and Dilbag Singh alias Mitthu for abducting an eight-year-old schoolboy in 2003. The Court held that reliable eyewitness testimony and recovery evidence proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The UP kidnapping for ransom case also established the ransom demand and the use of a firearm during the abduction. As a result, the Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal Nos. 2811–2812 of 2024 and affirmed the Allahabad High Court judgment dated August 5, 2022.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale delivered the judgment on May 27, 2026, in Harjindra Singh Etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2811–2812 of 2024.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case began with an FIR lodged on August 5, 2003, by Kuldeep Singh at Police Station Puranpur in Pilibhit district.
According to the FIR, his eight-year-old son Satnam Singh was travelling to school with his sisters when two men on a Rajdoot motorcycle intercepted them. One accused allegedly pointed a pistol at the children, abducted Satnam, and fled toward a nearby jungle.
Three days later, police recovered the child from a hut in Nadia Pouriya village in Shahjahanpur district. Investigators traced the recovery to information supplied by accused Dilbag Singh.
Meanwhile, the victim told police that he had remained confined in a room under the watch of Dalveer Kaur and another accused, Avtar Singh alias Pappu. Officers also recovered his school uniform, toys, and a wooden swing from the premises.
Later, investigators recovered a .315 bore country-made pistol and live cartridges at the instance of Harjindra Singh. They then filed chargesheets under Sections 364A and 368 IPC. They also charged Harjindra Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Trial Court and High Court Findings
The trial court convicted Harjindra Singh and Dilbag Singh and sentenced both to life imprisonment.
Later, the Allahabad High Court examined the evidence and upheld their convictions in 2022. Dissatisfied with that decision, both convicts approached the Supreme Court.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that the prosecution relied mainly on interested witnesses, especially members of the victim’s family.
They further contended that the prosecution failed to establish any threat of death or hurt, an essential ingredient of Section 364A IPC.
They also argued that the alleged ransom demand remained unproved because the prosecution produced neither call detail records nor electronic evidence.
To support their case, the defence relied on Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana, Willian Stephen v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Wahid v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
Additionally, the appellants claimed that the victim had stated he was treated with affection during detention. They argued that visits by the victim’s mother and sisters to Harjindra Singh in jail indicated false implication.
State’s Response
The State argued that the complainant, the victim’s sisters, and the child victim gave consistent testimony throughout the trial.
Furthermore, it submitted that a witness’s relationship with the victim does not reduce credibility. For that proposition, it relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh.
The prosecution also maintained that oral evidence sufficiently established the ₹5 lakh ransom demand.
Moreover, it argued that the recovery of the abducted child and the firearm strongly corroborated its case. It relied on Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris, Rajesh Govind Jagesha, and Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court agreed with the Allahabad High Court’s appreciation of evidence. It found that consistent oral testimony established the ransom demand.
The Bench then examined the role of each appellant separately.
According to the Court, Dilbag Singh drove the motorcycle used in the abduction and led police to the recovery of the child.
In contrast, Harjindra Singh acted as the pillion rider, threatened the victim with a firearm, abducted him, and later led investigators to the recovery of the weapon.
The Court rejected the argument that the acquittal of other accused entitled the appellants to similar relief. Instead, it observed that direct eyewitness testimony and recovery evidence placed them on much stronger footing.
Furthermore, the Bench held that courts cannot discard the testimony of related witnesses merely because they are related to the victim. It found no material contradictions in their evidence.
While interpreting Section 364A IPC, the Court held that abducting a child at gunpoint itself constituted a threat of death or hurt and satisfied the statutory requirement explained in Shaik Ahmed.
The Bench also distinguished Willian Stephen. It observed that multiple witnesses consistently proved the ransom demand through oral evidence. Therefore, the absence of call records did not weaken the prosecution case.
Regarding the Test Identification Parade, the Court reiterated that a TIP serves only as corroborative evidence. Here, eyewitness testimony and recoveries independently established the appellants’ identities.
Finally, the Court accepted the explanation that the victim’s family visited Harjindra Singh in jail only to identify those behind the kidnapping. Consequently, that circumstance did not undermine the prosecution case.
Final Decision
After reviewing the entire record, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution established the kidnapping, the firearm threat, the ransom demand, and the active participation of both appellants.
It also rejected the defence theory of false implication as vague and unsupported by evidence.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the convictions of Harjindra Singh and Dilbag Singh under Sections 364A and 368 IPC, sustained their life sentences, and dismissed the appeals.
