MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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