Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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