INTRODUCTION
In the case of Harjindra Singh Etc. v. The State of U.P. (2026 INSC 569), decided on 27th May, 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, consisting of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, dealt with the requirements of evidence needed to prove kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court concluded that the lack of Call Detail Records (CDRs) or formal electronic proof of a ransom call made to a rural phone exchange in 2003 does not weaken the Prosecution’s case, especially when credible oral testimonies support the claim. The decision establishes a clear ruling on the admissibility of dock identification and recovery of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It also reaffirms that the absence of a formal Test Identification Parade (TIP) does not affect a conviction if direct recoveries clearly connect the accused to the crime.
BRIEF FACTS
On 5th August, 2003, around 6:30 a.m., an 8-year-old boy named Satnam Singh was kidnapped by two men on a Rajdoot motorcycle while he was cycling to school with his sisters. The victim’s father, who was the first informant (PW-1), filed a First Information Report (FIR) at 12:30 p.m. that same day after not being able to track down the abductors. The family received a ransom call asking for Rs. 5 Lakhs on their home telephone around 11:00 a.m.
During the investigation, on 8th August, 2003, Police located the kidnapped child in a hut in Nadia Pouriya, a village in a neighboring district, based solely on the pointing out of the Accused, Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu. The child’s hidden school uniform was also found at the site. Later, during Police custody, the second Accused, Harjindra Singh, guided the Police to a bush where they found the crime weapon – .315 bore country-made pistol and live cartridges.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellants under Sections 364A and 368 of the IPC. It also convicted Harjindra Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court upheld this decision in its judgment dated 5th August, 2022, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
- The main legal questions before the Apex Court involved whether the key components of Section 364A of the IPC, particularly the “threat to cause death or hurt”, were met even if the victim was not physically harmed during captivity.
- The Apex Court also examined if a ransom demand could be legally proven without Call Detail Records (CDRs) or a Section 65-B certificate under the Evidence Act.
- The Apex Court looked into whether identifying the Accused for the first time in court without a preceding Test Identification Parade (TIP) is legally acceptable and whether the acquittal of other Co-Accused could lead to the acquittal of the current Appellants based on the principle of parity.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court rejected the Appellants’ argument that the elements of Section 364A of the IPC were not satisfied. It pointed out that the act of taking young, helpless children and using a deadly .315 bore pistol clearly showed a serious threat to cause death or injury. The Court made it clear that even if no physical harm occurred during detention, the initial violent abduction was enough to meet the legal requirements.
A major part of the judgment dealt with the handling of electronic evidence related to the ransom call. The Court distinguished this case from previous ones like Willian Stephen v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2025) 5 SCC 258, noting that this case did not depend solely on electronic evidence. The ransom demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs was conclusively proven by the consistent and supported oral statements of the father (PW-1), the two sisters (PW-2 and PW-3) and the Investigating Officer (PW-7). The Apex Court emphasized that the lack of a CDR from a rural phone exchange in 2003 should not stop the functioning of the criminal justice system if the oral evidence is solid and unchallenged.
The Apex Court also upheld the traditional evidentiary rules regarding dock identification without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP).
It cited precedents like Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 3 SCC 625 and mentioned that the incident occurred during daylight, giving eyewitnesses a clear view of the accused therein. Significantly, the Court noted that identities were firmly confirmed through recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Dilbag Singh’s identification helped retrieve the child, while Harjindra Singh’s identification pointed to the location of the weapon. The Hon’ble Apex Court also dismissed the parity argument, highlighting that the evidence against the Appellants was stronger and more direct, involving both clear identification and precise forensic recovery.
In contrast, the other Co-Accused had no such direct and participatory evidence.
ANIKET KUMAR PARCHA
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Editor’s Comments
The Supreme Court dismissed the Appeals, concluding that the prosecution had built a strong and consistent chain of evidence against the Appellants. It found no merit in the defense arguments and upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The Court maintained the life imprisonment sentences given to Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu and Harjindra Singh under Sections 364A and 368 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Sushila Ram Varma
Advocate and Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “TCS Office में Religious Conversion और S*xual Harassment की पूरी कहानी! TCS Nashik Case”can be viewed at the link below: