2026 INSC 569 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO (s). 2811-2812/2024

HARJINDRA SINGH ETC. .………APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF U.P. ……. RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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 the Arms act was

additionally framed against Harjindra Singh. The accused denied

the charges and claimed trial. PW1, Kuldeep Singh, is the first

informant and father of the abductee. He has stated before the

Court that the abductee Satnam Singh was aged about 8 years and

was a student of class 2 in St. Joseph School Puranpur. He has

three sisters, namely Sandeep Kaur, Anudeep Kaur, students of

class VIII and Mandeep Kaur, student of class IV, also in St.

Joseph's School, Puranpur. On the date of incident at about 6:30

am the children were going to school on their cycles. When they

reached Tadola near the house of Hardeep Singh, a Rajdoot

motorcycle approached from the front and the children were

stopped at pistol point. The motorcycle rider took Satnam off the

bicycle, pushed his sister and escaped with the abductee. On a hue

and cry being raised by his daughters, Dr Majid Ali, Arshad Ali and

Manjit Singh came to the spot and chased the accused on

motorcycle. The abductors escaped into the jungle proceeding via

Lah Muzzafarnar and Bhaipur. His son was recovered on the

pointing out of Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu in the presence of Devender

5

Singh, Ramgopal and police personnel from the house of Dalveer

Kaur situated in village in Bhopatpur, District Shahjahanpur. The

house belongs to her brother Pappu @ Avtar Singh. The child was

recovered at 5:30 pm and recognised him. Dalveer Kaur was taken

into custody. She also handed over the school dress worn by the

abductee, which were kept in a trunk. The clothes were sealed

along with the toys and swing found on the spot and memo was

prepared, on which Dalveer Kaur put her thumb impression and a

copy was given to her. The abducted child was thereafter given in

his custody.

6. The accused have in their testimony under Section 313

Cr.P.C. stated that they have falsely implicated on account of

enmity. However, no reason for any enmity between the appellants

and the prosecution witnesses has been offered.

7. Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad did not find any illegality in

the order of conviction and sentence granted by Sessions Court

awarded to the 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. Hon’ble High Court upheld the

conviction and sentence of both the appellants under Section

364A I.P.C.

6

8. Therefore both, Criminal Appeal No. 5483 of 2006 and 5035

of 2006 were dismissed. The third Criminal Appeal No. 4735 of

2006 filed on behalf of Dalveer Kaur as noticed, has already

abated, on account of her death.

9. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court, the

appellant is before us.

CONTENTIONS

10. The counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire

prosecution case is based on the evidence of highly interested and

partisan witness, P.W.1, who is father of the abductee is not an

eye-witness of the alleged incident.

10.1. It was submitted that there was no evidence or findings

recorded by the subordinate Courts that any threat was

extended by the appellants to cause death or hurt to the victim

nor their conduct gave rise to reasonable apprehension that

such person may be put to death or hurt.

10.2. It was also contended that neither the learned

Additional Session Judge nor the High Court referred to the

above essential conditions for conviction under Section 364A.

Neither the call for ransom was disclosed to the police at the

time of lodging of FIR, nor the allegation of receipt of ransom

7

call has been substantiated by furnishing details with regard to

receiving of such demand of ransom. The prosecution has

completely failed to establish the demand for ransom.

10.3. It was also submitted that neither any CDR has been

furnished, nor any specific details have been narrated as to who

has attended the phone call or who was person on other side

demanding ransom. Thus, the evidence regarding demand of

ransom have not been correctly evaluated and renders the

conviction of the appellants unsustainable.

10.4. It was also contended that as per the statement of PW-

4, the victim himself in his statement has stated that he was

treated with love and affection. PW-4 in his statement has also

not alleged that any threat was extended to cause death or hurt

to the victim.

10.5. It was also contended that there is no explanation as to

why the mother and sister of the abductee went to jail to meet

appellant no.1 and also carried eatables for him, which shows

that the appellants have been falsely implicated.

8

10.6. The counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of

Shaik Ahmed vs State of Telangana

1

wherein this Hon’ble

Court held in para 13 & 14 that:

“After the first condition the second condition is joined by

conjunction "and", thus, whoever kidnaps or abducts any

person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping

or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such

person. The use of conjunction "and" has its purpose and

object. Section 364-A uses the word "or" nine times and the

whole section contains only one conjunction "and", which joins

the first and second condition. Thus, for covering an offence

under Section 364-A, apart from fulfilment of first condition,

the second condition i.e. "and threatens to cause death or hurt

to such person" also needs to be proved in case the case is not

covered by subsequent clauses joined by "or"”.

10.7. The counsel for the appellants also relied upon the case

of Willian Stephen vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.

2

Wherein it was held that

“16. The record relating to the call details has been discarded

by the High Court as there was no certification under Section

65-B of the Evidence Act. The call records could have been the

best possible evidence for the prosecution to prove the threats

allegedly administered by the accused and the demand of

ransom. Even taking the evidence of PW 1 and PW 3 as

correct, all that is proved is that they received a phone call

1 (2021) 9 SCC 59

2 (2024) 5 SCC 258

9

from someone for demanding ransom and the person

threatened to kill their son in case ransom is not paid.”

10.8. The counsel for the appellants also relied upon the case

of Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

3 in which it was held

that:

“28. As far as dock identification by the remaining two

eyewitnesses is concerned, they identified the accused

persons during their deposition in court in the year

2015, that is, after nearly 4 years of the Incident. PW 6,

though stated that he identified the accused persons on

6-12-2011 while they were in the police lock -up,

admitted that he went to the police station without being

summoned. Interestingly, as per his description in the

record, he is a resident of Aligarh. During cross-

examination, he stated that he visited the police station

on 6-12-2011 at 7.30 a.m. Considering that he is a

resident of Aligarh, his statement that he visited the

police station without summons on 6-12-2011 at 7.30

a.m. does not inspire our confidence.

29. Admittedly, memory of those witnesses was not

tested through a test identification parade. In such

circumstances, when three eyewitnesses stated that

the accused persons were not the ones who committed

the crime and another one stated that it was too dark,

therefore, he could not recognise, bearing in mind that

the accused persons were not known to the

3 (2025) 3 SCC 341

10

eyewitnesses from before, not much reliance can be

placed on the dock identification.”

11. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submitted that

the prosecution case is fully supported by PW.1 the complainant,

PW.2 and PW.3, the two sisters of the victim child and PW.4 the

abducted child. They were subjected to detailed cross-examination

by the counsel for the accused persons but the witnesses stood

firm and unshaken to the cross-examination, as such the ocular

testimony of these witnesses is trustworthy and wholly acceptable.

11.1 The learned counsel further submitted that merely

because PW.1 as the father of the victim and PW.2 and PW.3

as sisters of the victim are interested witnesses, is neither

acceptable nor sustainable, for the simple reason that they

are the natural witnesses and if their ocular testimony is

trustworthy, there is no reason to discard their version,

stating that they were interested witnesses, as held by this

Hon'ble Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh

4

, in which this

Hon'ble Court has emphasized that relationship cannot be a

factor to affect the credibility of a witness. Para 29 of the

judgment is quoted below:

4 (2011) 4 SCC 324

11

“29. The evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on

the ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence.

The plea relating to the relatives' evidence remains without

any substance in case the evidence has credence and it can

be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay

foundation if plea of false implication is made and the court

has to analyze the evidence of a related witnesses carefully

to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (Vide Jarnail

Singh Vs. State of Punjab {(2009) 9 SCC 719), Vishnu Vs.

State of Rajasthan ((2009) 10 SCC 477) and Balraje Vs. State

of Maharashtra {(2011) 4 SCC 262)”

11.2 The counsel for the respondent also submitted that

appellants’ statement of the demand for ransom not been

proved and that the prosecution has not revealed as to how

the alleged ransom was demanded, is also untenable. As per

the statement of PW.1, after chasing the kidnapper

unsuccessfully, he returned back and lodged the FIR at 12.30

pm. He stayed at the police station for over two hours and

reached home at 7:00 pm in the evening when his daughters

informed him about the ransom call which had been received

at 11:00 am, the same day. PW-2 and PW-3 have also stated

that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs were demanded as ransom. Even the

first Investigating Officer, PW-7, in his oral testimony has

stated that he was told by the complainant on 07.08.2003

12

about the call demanding ransom of Rs. 5 lacs and that in

this connection he had also recorded the statement of

Santosh Kaur, the mother of the abducted child. As such this

contention has no merit.

11.3 The counsel for the respondent also refuted the

contentions of the appellants that there is no explanation as

to why the mother and the sister of the victim had come to

meet him in the jail. In this regard, it is stated by PW-2

during her cross-examination that they had gone to meet

Harjindra with a view to inquire as to who actually is behind

the kidnapping. It is also worth mentioning here that it has

come in the statement of the abducted child that he was not

ill-treated during his detention. Therefore, this fact alone is

not sufficient to draw adverse inference against the

prosecution.

11.4 The counsel for the respondent further contended that

the ground raised by appellants that the child had been

recovered from the custody of accused Dalveer Kaur and she

alone is responsible for this kidnapping, is not tenable. It is

relevant to mention here that Harjindra Singh had not been

arrested but had surrendered in Court. The firearm used at

the time of the incident to threaten the children has been

13

recovered on his pointing out after obtaining his police

remand and the testimony is in consonance with the general

diary entries. It is relevant that Harjindra has been identified

by the PW-3 in Court as the person who had lifted the

abducted boy and placed him on the motorcycle.

11.5 It was further submitted by the respondent that the

appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of

enmity. However, appellants have failed to disclose the kind

of enmity between them and the prosecution witnesses.

Therefore, the defence taken by the appellants is not liable to

be accepted.

11.6 The counsel for the respondent relied on the case of

Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc v . State of

Maharashtra

5

in which it was held that:

“We have already laid down above that the identification of

the accused by a witness if he had an opportunity to

interact with him or to notice his distinctive features lends

assurance to his testimony in court and that the absence of

corroborative evidence by way of test identification parade

would not be material.”

5 (1998) 3 SCC 625

14

“It has been laid down that where the witness had a

chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where

the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive

features of the accused which lends assurance to his

testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for

the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away

merely because no test identification parade was held. In

that case, the accused concerned had a talk with the

identifying witnesses for about 7/8 minutes. In these

circumstances, the conviction of the accused, on the basis

of sworn testimony of witnesses identifying for the first time

in court without the same being corroborated either by

previous identification in the test identification parade or

any other evidence, was upheld by this Court.

11.7 In the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha v . State of

Maharashtra

6 it was laid down that

“The absence of test identification parade may not be fatal

if the accused is sufficiently described in the complaint

leaving no doubt in the mind of the court regarding his

involvement or is arrested on the spot immediately after the

occurrence and in either eventuality, the evidence of

witnesses identifying the accused for the first time in court

can form the basis for conviction without the same being

corroborated by any other evidence and, accordingly ,

conviction of the accused was upheld by this Court.”

6 (1999) 8 SCC 428

15

11.8 In the cases of Goverdhan & another v . State of

Chhattisgarh

7, it was held that:

“Held, merely because some of the accused persons have

been acquitted. though evidence against all of them, so far

as direct testimony went, was the same does not lead as a

necessary corollary that those who have been convicted

must also be acquitted. It is always open to a court to

differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from

those who were convicted.

Just because the father of the appellants was

acquitted will not warrant their acquittal as there is

sufficient and cogent material evidence against them to

prove the case beyond reasonable doubt whereas the case

against the acquitted accused is doubtful”

ANALYSIS

12. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as Ld.

Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused relevant

documents on record and the judgments passed by the Courts

below. In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court is based on

just and proper reappreciation as well as on a sound reasoning.

The High Court has dealt with all the grounds raised in challenge

to the judgment and order of the Trial Court in detail and it will

7 (2025) 3 SCC 378

16

not be out of place to refer to material observations of the High

Court and the same are as under:

“The first contention, which requires consideration is that

the demand for ransom is not proved and that the

prosecution has not revealed as to how the alleged ransom

was demanded. PW-1, the first informant has in his cross-

examination stated that on receiving information of the

incident over the telephone, he went in pursuit of the

accused in the direction they were stated to have escaped

after the kidnapping. The accused had entered the jungle.

When he lost hope of finding his son he returned and lodged

the FIR at 12:30 pm. He stayed at the police station for over

two hours and that he reached home at 7:00 pm in the

evening when his daughters narrated the incident to him.

They also informed him about the ransom call which had

been received at 11:00 am, the same day. PW-2 and PW-3

have in their oral testimony stated that there was a

telephone connection in their house which on the date of

incident was in working condition. They have also stated

that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was demanded as ransom. Even

the first Investigating Officer, PW-7, in his oral testimony

has stated that he was told by the first informant on

07.08.2003 about the call demanding ransom of Rs. 5 lacs

and that in this connection he had also recorded the

statement of Santosh Kaur, the mother of the abductee.

From the facts noticed above, it is clear that there is no

manifest discrepancy in the prosecution case regarding the

demand of ransom. Moreover, PW-1 has clearly deposed

that the call for ransom was received at around 11:00 am.

Under the circumstances, the contention of learned counsel

17

for the appellants that the demand of ransom has not been

proved cannot be accepted.

The second contention of learned counsel for the appellants

that no test identification parade was held to identify the

appellants also cannot be accepted. The prosecution has

been able to prove that the abductee was recovered from a

place in the adjoining district from a hut like house situated

at a distance from the police station which distance could

be covered in more than an hour by jeep and motorcycle.

The place from where the abductee has been recovered was

pointed out by Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu. The clothes worn by

the abductee at the time of kidnapping have also been

recovered from the same location and the memos prepared

in this regard have been duly proved. Under the

circumstances and since the abductee was recovered on the

pointing out Dilbag Singh , statement that a test

identification parade should have been held is of no

consequence. As the abductee was recovered, it cannot be

said that the prosecution case is fabricated in any manner.

The recovery is also in the presence of public witnesses

including the father of the abductee. The facts stated in the

oral testimony match the GD and case diary entries referred

to in the statement of the Investigating Officer.

It would also be relevant to note that Harjindra Singh has

not been arrested but had surrendered in Court. The firearm

used at the time of the incident to threaten the children has

been recovered on his pointing out after obtaining his police

remand and the testimony is in consonance with the GD

entries.

18

Although, during trial the factum of obtaining police remand

and after effecting recovery of the firearm Harjindra being

produced before the Magistrate and thereafter being lodged

in jail has been disputed, nothing of substance has been

stated or has emerged from a careful perusal of the record

that would cast any doubt upon the said sequence of

events.

Besides, Harjindra has been identified by the PW-3 in Court

as the person who had lifted the abductee and placed him

on the motorcycle.

The only suspicious circumstance in the matter is the

admission that the mother of the abductee and his sisters

went to meet Harjindra in jail and this factum has been

vehemently highlighted by learned counsel for the

appellants. Learned counsel also submi tted that this

conduct of the family members is not a normal conduct, as

eatables were also carried for Harjindra Singh, with the

abductee mother and sisters went to meet him in jail and

that this indicates that Harjindra has been falsely

implicated in the matter.

The explanation offered in this regard by PW-2 during cross-

examination is that they had gone to meet Harjindar with a

view to inquire as to who was actually behind the

kidnapping. The other circumstance, which emerges from

the oral testimony of the abductee himself is that he was

not ill treated during his detention.

In our considered opinion, this explanation for the jail visit

cannot be said to be an impossibility or an explanation

which is not plausible. Therefore, even Harjindra Singh is

entitled to any benefit on the basis of the submissions that

have been made by his Counsel. The accused have in their

19

testimony under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they have

been falsely implicated on account of enmity. However, no

reason for any enmity between the appellants and the

prosecution witnesses has been offered. The defence under

the circumstances, is altogether vague and shorn of any

specifics. It therefore, is not liable to be accepted.”

……Emphasis supplied

13. In addition to the above-referred observations of the High

Court, we may take note of certain factual aspects, the perusal of

the record clearly show that the prosecution was successful to

establish respective role of the each accused, particularly, the two

appellants who are before us. The entire criminal machinery was

set into motion following a daylight kidnapping of an 8-year-old

school-going boy, Satnam Singh, at pistol point. Based on the

evidence and the chargesheets filed, the roles and present status

of the accused need to be taken into consideration. Accused Dilbag

Singh @Mitthu (Appellant/Convict) was the individual driving the

black Rajdoot motorcycle used for the abduction. He was identified

as the driver who explicitly directed his accomplice to leave the

girls and abduct the boy. Crucially, it was on his pointing out that

the abducted child was safely recovered from a hut in village Nadia

Pouriya on 08.08.2003. He was convicted under Sections 364A and

20

368 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. As the chain of

evidence heavily implicates him, primarily the recovery of the

victim directly ensuing from his confessional disclosure to the

police, corroborated by the ocular testimony of the victim's sisters.

14. Accused Harjindra Singh (Appellant/ Convict) was the pillion

rider on the motorcycle. He was the one who wielded a .315 bore

country-made pistol, pointed it at the children, forcefully lifted the

8-year-old victim, pushed away the victim's sister when she

resisted, and placed the child on the motorcycle. Subsequently,

upon his police remand, the crime weapon (a .315 bore pistol) and

live cartridges were recovered from a bush in the jungle on his

pointing out. He was also convicted under Sections 364A, 368 of

the IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, serving a life sentence.

His active participation is irrefutably proven by eyewitness dock

identification and the forensic recovery of the weapon.

15. Accused Dalveer Kaur was found inside the hut in village

Nadia Pouriya, physically guarding the abducted child alongside

another individual. She was taken into custody from the spot and

handed over the child’s hidden school uniform to the police. She

was convicted by the Ld. Trial Court. However, during the

pendency of her appeal before the High Court, she passed away.

21

Consequently, her Criminal Appeal No. 4735 of 2006 has abated

on account of her death.

16. Avtar Singh @ Pappu, Jassa Singh, Jagtar Singh, and Bahaar

Ali were implicated as co-accused, these individuals were

implicated during the investigation for allegedly assisting in

guarding the child or conspiring in the crime. They have been

acquitted by the Trial Court. The prosecution could not establish

their active, participatory guilt beyond a reasonable doubt through

direct evidence.

17. The appellants have fiercely contended that the acquittal of

other co-accused renders their own conviction legally

unsustainable. However, we are unable to accept the submissions

of learned counsel for the simple reason that the roles played by

those co-accused and the evidence against these co-accused was

falling short to establish the case against these accused persons.

As such, the Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal in favour of

these co-accused persons, whereas there was sufficient legal

evidence against the appellants before this Court and therefore,

the Trial Court recorded order of conviction which was upheld by

the High Court. In view of this fact, the appellants cannot claim

principle of parity with the other co-accused and were acquitted by

the Trial Court. As rightly relied upon by the respondent-State in

22

the case of Goverdhan & another (Supra), “merely because some

of the accused persons have been acquitted, though evidence

against all of them, so far as direct testimony went, was the same

does not lead as a necessary corollary that those who have been

convicted must also be acquitted”. The evidence against Dilbag

Singh and Harjindra Singh is of a substantially distinct and higher

footing, involving direct ocular identification during the act of

kidnapping and precise recoveries under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act. Therefore, the acquittal of the co-accused has no

bearing on the appellants’ culpability.

18. The defence has heavily argued that the entire prosecution

case rests on the testimony of highly interested and partisan

witnesses, specifically pointing out that PW.1 (Kuldeep Singh,

father of the victim) is not an eyewitness. This Court finds this

argument fundamentally flawed. While PW.1 is indeed the father

of the victim, the law is well-settled that relationship with the

victim is not a ground to discard a witness's testimony. We place

firm reliance on the judgment of this Court in Naresh (supra). On

carefully analysing the evidence, we see that PW.1’s actions were

entirely natural. Upon hearing of the kidnapping, he immediately

went in pursuit of the abductors into the jungle. When the pursuit

failed, he lodged the FIR promptly at 12:30 pm. He is not an

23

eyewitness to the abduction itself, but he is a vital witness to the

lodging of the FIR and the subsequent recovery of the child on the

pointing out of Dilbag Singh, which he personally witnessed.

19. The actual eyewitnesses to the kidnapping are PW.2 (Sandeep

Kaur) and PW.3 (Mandeep/Anudeep Kaur), the victim’s sisters who

were cycling to school with him. Despite exhaustive cross

examination, the defence failed to extract any material

contradiction from these young witnesses. PW.2 and PW.3 vividly

described the black Rajdoot motorcycle, the physical appearance

of the appellants, and the terrifying use of the firearm to forcefully

take their brother. Furthermore, PW.4, the 8-year-old abducted

child (Satnam Singh), testified clearly about the traumatic event,

explicitly identifying Dilbag Singh as the driver. The defence argued

that PW.4 admitted he was treated with “love and affection” during

his captivity and was not explicitly threatened with death.

However, being treated without physical cruelty during illegal

detention does not absolve the kidnappers of the initial violent

abduction at pistol point, nor does it extinguish the terror inflicted

upon the victim's family.

20. The core of the appellants’ legal challenge rests on the

assertion that the essential ingredients of Section 364A IPC have

not been satisfied. The learned counsel for the appellants

24

vehemently relied upon the judgment of this Court in Shaik

Ahmed (supra), highlighting Paras 13 and 14, which state that

whoever kidnaps a person must also threaten to cause death or

hurt to such person to attract Section 364A. The defence argued

that neither was a threat to life extended to the child, nor was the

demand for ransom successfully proved.

21. We have scrutinized this contention in the light of the

evidence. The very act of stopping young, defenceless children on

their way to school by brandishing a .315 bore country-made pistol

inherently constitutes a severe threat to cause death or hurt. The

use of a lethal firearm to compel compliance and abduct the child

perfectly satisfies the second condition of Section 364A as

enunciated in Shaik Ahmed (supra).

22. Regarding the demand for ransom, the defence cited Willian

Stephen (supra), arguing that the absence of Call Detail Records

(CDRs) and a Section 65-B certificate is fatal to the prosecution’s

claim of a ransom demand. It was argued that no specifics of the

phone call were documented.

23. However, this Court cannot evaluate evidence in a vacuum.

PW-1 clearly deposed in his cross-examination that upon returning

home at 7:00 PM after lodging the FIR and conducting a search,

his daughters informed him that a ransom call demanding Rs. 5

25

Lakhs had been received at their working home telephone around

11:00 am that very day. This is fully corroborated by the

testimonies of PW.2 and PW.3, who were present in the house and

testified about the demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs. Most importantly, PW.7

(the Investigating Officer) deposed that PW.1 informed him about

this Rs. 5 Lakh ransom call on 07.08.2003, and the I.O.

subsequently recorded the statement of Santosh Kaur (the victim's

mother) regarding this specific call.

24. Unlike the factual matrix in Willian Stephen (supra), where

the entire case hinged exclusively on discarded electronic evidence,

the present case features unshaken, corroborative oral testimonies

from multiple witnesses proving the ransom demand. The lack of

a CDR from a rural telephone exchange in 2003 can not be

permitted to paralyze the criminal justice system when the

substantive oral evidence remains cogent, credible, and completely

unimpeached. Therefore, the High Court rightly concluded that the

demand for ransom was established beyond reasonable doubt.

25. The appellants have strongly contested their identification,

submitting that no formal Test Identification Parade (TIP) was

conducted. Relying on Wahid (supra), the defence argued that

dock identification for the first time in court, years after the

incident, without a preceding TIP, does not inspire confidence.

26

26. This argument is legally untenable given the specific facts of

this case. A TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence; it is merely

corroborative. As correctly pointed out by the respondent-State,

this Court in Ronny @ Ronald James Alwaris Etc (supra) clearly

laid down that “where the witness had a chance to interact with the

accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to

notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance

to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for

the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely

because no test identification parade was held.” Furthermore, in

Rajesh Govind Jagesha (supra), we held that the absence of a

TIP is not fatal if the accused is sufficiently described or arrested

immediately after the occurrence.

27. In the case at hand, the incident took place in broad daylight

(6:30 am). The young girls (PW.2 and PW.3) had a clear,

unobstructed opportunity to observe the physical features of the

kidnappers during the traumatic confrontation that lasted several

minutes, which included physical pushing and verbal exchange in

Punjabi. They provided accurate physical descriptions to the police

immediately. Furthermore, Dilbag Singh was identified by the girls

at the police station shortly after his arrest. Harjindra Singh was

positively identified in court by PW-3.

27

28. More importantly, the identity of the perpetrators is decisively

cemented by the recoveries made pursuant to their own

disclosures. Dilbag Singh’s custodial statement led directly to the

recovery of the kidnapped child and the co-accused Dalveer Kaur

in an adjoining district-a location the police could not have

possibly known otherwise. Similarly, Harjindra Singh, after

surrendering, led the police to the exact bush near a pipal tree

where a .315 bore pistol and live cartridges used in the crime were

recovered. These direct recoveries under Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act completely negate the necessity of a formal TIP and

establish the appellants’ guilt irrefutably.

29. The defence vigorously highlighted a supposedly “suspicious

circumstance” wherein the mother and sisters of the victim went

to the jail to meet Harjindra Singh and allegedly brought eatables

for him. The appellants argued that such conduct is highly

abnormal for a victim’s family and points towards false implication.

30. The High Court profoundly examined this contention, and

this Court finds no reason to deviate from its finding. During cross-

examination, PW.2 provided a highly plausible and natural

explanation: the family members visited Harjindra Singh in jail

strictly to inquire and uncover the identity of the actual

mastermind behind the kidnapping. It is a natural human reaction

28

for a traumatized family to seek answers about why they were

targeted. Bringing eatables does not equate to absolving a

kidnapper of his crimes. As the High Court rightly noted, this

explanation is neither impossible nor implausible. We are in

complete agreement with the view expressed by the High Court, as

such this single circumstance cannot be a reason to discard the

other credible evidence brought before the Court and on a

thorough appreciation accepted by the Court.

CONCLUSION

31. To summarize, the prosecution has successfully woven a

seamless chain of evidence against the appellants.

1) The factual abduction of 8-year-old Satnam Singh on

05.08.2003 was established by unimpeachable eyewitness

accounts (PW.2, PW.3).

2) The threat to life was proven by the overt use of a deadly

firearm at the time of abduction, squarely satisfying the

threshold of Section 364A IPC as interpreted in Shaik Ahmed.

3) The demand for a ransom of Rs. 5 Lakhs was unequivocally

proven through consistent oral testimonies of the family and

the Investigating Officer.

29

4) The identity and active role of the appellants were

conclusively established not just by dock identification, but

by the infallible recoveries made under Section 27 of the

Evidence Act; the recovery of the living child at the behest of

Dilbag Singh, and the recovery of the crime weapon at the

behest of Harjindra Singh.

5) The defence of false implication due to “enmity” was entirely

hollow, as the appellants utterly failed in their Section 313

Cr.P.C. statements to disclose any specific motive or pre-

existing animosity that would compel the victim's family to

falsely frame them.

32. The Ld. Trial Court and the Hon’ble High Court of judicature

at Allahabad have appreciated the evidence in its correct

perspective. The conviction is based on a sound legal footing and

profound factual analysis.

33. Accordingly, this Court finds absolutely no merit in the

contentions raised by the appellants. The judgment and order

dated 05.08.2022 passed by the High Court affirming the

conviction of Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu and Harjindra Singh under

Sections 364A and 368 of the IPC (and Section 25 of the Arms Act

30

for Harjindra Singh) is hereby upheld. The sentence of life

imprisonment awarded to them is sustained.

34. The appeals are hereby dismissed.

........................................J.

[PANKAJ MITHAL]

.........................................J.

[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

MAY 27, 2026.