Harjindra Singh v. State of U.P. 2026 INSC 569

On August 5, 2003, at approximately 6:30 a.m., 8-year-old Satnam Singh was cycling to school with his three sisters in District Pilibhit. Two unknown men on a black Rajdoot motorcycle stopped them at pistol point. The pillion rider (Harjindra Singh) forcefully lifted the boy, pushed his sister away, and the duo sped off.

Neighbors and relatives chased the kidnappers on motorbikes, but the accused managed to escape into the jungle.

On August 8, 2003, based on the pointing out of accused Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu, the police recovered the child from a hut in village Nadia Pouriya. A woman, Dalveer Kaur, was found guarding the child and produced his hidden school uniform.

On September 3, 2003, a country-made pistol and live cartridges were recovered from the jungle on the pointing out of Harjindra Singh.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 364A and 368 of the IPC (and Section 25 of the Arms Act for Harjindra), awarding them life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court dismissed their appeals in 2022, leading to the present Supreme Court challenge.

Ingredients of Section 364A: The Court relying on Shaik Ahmed v. State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 59 held that brandishing a lethal firearm to abduct a defenseless child inherently constitutes a severe threat to cause death or hurt, satisfying the second condition of Section 364A.

Proof of Ransom: While no Call Detail Records (CDRs) were provided, the Court found the consistent oral testimonies of the father (PW-1) and sisters (PW-2, PW-3) regarding a demand for Rs. 5 Lakhs to be credible. The Investigating Officer also confirmed recording statements about this demand shortly after the incident.

Reliability of Witnesses: The Court relying on State of U.P. v. Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324, reiterated that relationship to the victim is not a ground to discard testimony. The sisters were natural eyewitnesses whose accounts remained unshaken despite cross-examination.

Identification and Recoveries: The Court relied on Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra (1999) 8 SCC 428 and held that a TIP is merely corroborative and not mandatory if the witnesses had a clear opportunity to observe the accused in daylight. Crucially, the recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the living child at Dilbag’s behest and the weapon at Harjindra’s, irrefutably established their roles.

Parity Argument: The Court rejected the plea for parity with acquitted co-accused, noting that the evidence against the appellants (the actual abductors) was on a substantially higher footing.

The Jail Visit: The defense argued that the victim’s family visiting Harjindra in jail with eatables suggested false implication. The Court accepted the family’s explanation: they went to inquire who the mastermind was, which is a natural human reaction for a traumatized family.