Legal Analysis: Harjindra Singh etc. vs. State of U.P.

Citation: 2026 INSC 569 (Non-Reportable)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice Prasanna B. Varale & Justice Pankaj Mithal
Judgment Author: Justice Prasanna B. Varale & Justice Pankaj Mithal 
Date of Decision: May 27, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeals of the convicted accused and upholding their conviction under Sections 364A and 368 IPC (and Section 25 of the Arms Act for one accused).

Synopsis of the Judgment
The appellants (Harjindra Singh and Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu) were convicted by the trial court for the kidnapping for ransom of an 8-year-old boy, Satnam Singh, who was abducted at pistol point while going to school on 05.08.2003. The High Court dismissed their appeals, upholding the conviction and life sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for ransom and the threat to cause death or hurt, that no test identification parade was held, and that the conviction was based on interested witnesses. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the use of a firearm at the time of abduction inherently constitutes a threat to cause death or hurt, satisfying Section 364A. The demand for ransom was proved through consistent oral testimony of the family and the investigating officer, and the absence of call detail records from 2003 was not fatal. The recovery of the abducted child on the pointing out of Dilbag Singh and the recovery of the crime weapon on the pointing out of Harjindra Singh under Section 27 of the Evidence Act conclusively established their guilt. The acquittal of other co-accused did not entitle the appellants to parity, as the evidence against them was of a distinctly higher footing.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Harjindra Singh etc. vs. State of U.P.

• Criminal Appeal Nos.: 2811-2812 of 2024

• Bench: Justice Prasanna B. Varale (Division Bench)

• Judgment Author: Justice Prasanna B. Varale

• Date of Decision: May 27, 2026

• Citation: 2026 INSC 569 (Non-Reportable)

• Appeal From: Judgment and order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5483 of 2006 and 5035 of 2006, dismissing the appeals and upholding the conviction.

2. Legal Framework

Laws and Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom – threat to cause death or hurt), Section 368 (wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement a kidnapped person), Section 34 (common intention – not directly invoked but relevant).

• Arms Act, 1959: Section 25 (possession of prohibited arms or ammunition without license).

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27 (discovery of facts in consequence of information given by accused in police custody – recovery of child and weapon), Section 114 (adverse inference), Section 65B (admissibility of electronic evidence – discussed in context of CDRs).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied:

• Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2020) – Section 364A requires not only kidnapping but also a threat to cause death or hurt, joined by the conjunction "and". The use of a lethal weapon at the time of abduction satisfies the threat condition.

• William Stephen v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) – Call detail records without Section 65B certification cannot be relied upon. However, where oral testimony is consistent and credible, the absence o

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.