The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of two men accused in the 2003 abduction of an eight-year-old boy in Uttar Pradesh, holding that threatening children with a firearm during kidnapping itself satisfies the legal requirement under Section 364A of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeals filed by Harjindra Singh and Dilbag Singh @ Mitthu against the Allahabad High Court judgment affirming their conviction.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on August 5, 2003, when Satnam Singh, a Class II student, was going to school with his sisters on bicycles in Pilibhit district. Two men allegedly intercepted the children on a Rajdoot motorcycle and abducted the boy at pistol point.
The child was later recovered from a hut in Shahjahanpur district on the pointing out of accused Dilbag Singh. Investigators also recovered the child’s school uniform, toys and a swing from the location. A country-made pistol and live cartridges were subsequently recovered on the disclosure made by Harjindra Singh.
The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 364A and 368 IPC, while Harjindra Singh was additionally convicted under the Arms Act. The Allahabad High Court later upheld the conviction.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove a demand for ransom and did not establish any explicit threat to kill or injure the child, which they claimed was essential for attracting Section 364A IPC.
They also contended that no call records or electronic evidence were produced regarding the alleged ransom demand and that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.
Rejecting these arguments, the Supreme Court observed that the use of a firearm during the abduction itself amounted to a threat of death or hurt.
“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 Bench observed.
The Court also accepted the prosecution’s case regarding ransom demand, noting that family members consistently testified that a call demanding Rs 5 lakh was received on the day of the kidnapping.
On the issue of identification, the Bench held that the recovery of the abducted child and the weapon on the basis of disclosures made by the accused strongly supported the prosecution case, making the absence of a formal TIP inconsequential.
The Court further noted that the defence claim of false implication due to “enmity” was vague and unsupported by any material evidence.
Upholding the findings of the trial court and the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the kidnapping, ransom demand, recovery of the child, and the role of both appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court dismissed both appeals and sustained the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the convicts.
Case Details
Case Title: Harjindra Singh Etc. v. State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 of 2024
Judges: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Decision Date: May 27, 2026
