Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |    

Kidnapping for Ransom: High Court Upholds Conviction of Two, Acquits One in Notorious Chandigarh Abduction Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction of Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh in the infamous kidnapping-for-ransom case of a minor in Chandigarh, while acquitting Prabhjot Singh of all charges due to insufficient evidence. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri, Acting Chief Justice, and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra, has drawn significant attention.

Justice Manisha Batra, in her observations, highlighted, "It stands proved beyond doubt that [the victim] had been kidnapped for ransom on 18.01.2014." This assertion forms the crux of the judgment, underlining the court's stance on the gravity of the crime committed by Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh.

The court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented, including voice sample analysis from CFSL, which linked Sukhjinder Singh to ransom calls, substantiating his active involvement in the kidnapping and the subsequent ransom demand. However, in the case of Prabhjot Singh, the court noted glaring discrepancies and insufficient evidence, leading to his acquittal. "The findings of guilt of the appellant Prabhjot Singh for commission of offences ... are not sustainable," the bench observed.

The case, involving the abduction of a minor and demanding ransom, was initially registered under Sections 365, 364-A, 120-B IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. While the conviction of Sukhjinder and Sukhdev under kidnapping and conspiracy charges was upheld, they were acquitted of charges under the Arms Act, with the court finding the prosecution's narrative on firearm possession unconvincing.

Date of Decision: 22.11.2023

Sukhdev Singh vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

Similar News