Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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