oral evidence can prove Section 364A IPC; lack of CDR or TIP is not fatal when recovery and witnesses are reliable.

Case Name: Harjindra Singh Etc. v. The State of U.P.

Citation: 2026 INSC 569

Date of Judgment/Order: May 27, 2026

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that conviction under Section 364A IPC can be sustained where kidnapping, threat to life, and demand for ransom are proved through reliable and consistent evidence. The Court clarified that the use of a deadly firearm at the time of abducting a child itself constitutes a serious threat of death or hurt, satisfying the threat requirement under Section 364A IPC. The Court further held that absence of Call Detail Records or a Section 65-B certificate is not fatal where the ransom demand is proved by cogent oral testimony of family members and the investigating officer. Similarly, absence of a Test Identification Parade does not vitiate conviction where the accused were identified by witnesses who had sufficient opportunity to observe them, and where the recovery of the victim and weapon on the pointing out of the accused independently corroborates their involvement.

Summary: The case arose from the kidnapping of eight-year-old Satnam Singh, who was abducted at pistol point while going to school with his sisters. The prosecution alleged that the appellants came on a Rajdoot motorcycle, threatened the children with a firearm, forcibly took away the child, and later demanded INR 5 lakh as ransom. The child was recovered on the pointing out of accused Dilbag Singh from a hut-like house in another district, while a country-made pistol and cartridges were recovered on the pointing out of Harjindra Singh. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 364A and 368 IPC, and Harjindra Singh was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The High Court upheld the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that ransom demand was not proved, no CDR was produced, no TIP was conducted, some co-accused had been acquitted, and the child was not ill-treated during captivity. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, holding that the eyewitness testimony of the victim’s sisters, the testimony of the victim, the corroborated oral evidence regarding ransom demand, and the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act formed a reliable and complete evidentiary basis.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated August 5, 2022 affirming the conviction of Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu and Harjindra Singh under Sections 364A and 368 IPC, and the conviction of Harjindra Singh under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants was sustained.