Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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

Latest Legal News