Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
1 CRA-444-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 444 of 2020
RAMKUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ishaan Datt - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 465 of 2020
ABHILASH ALIAS KHATTU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Ravinandan Dwivedi - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1038 of 2020
KAMLENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1109 of 2020
DADNA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-05-2025
17:46:13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
2 CRA-444-2020
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1294 of 2020
PRAMOD @ NILESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla
In Sessions Trial No.329/2013, 11 persons were tried for the offence
of kidnapping, ransom, murder etc. and upon conclusion of trial, appellants
Ramkumar, Abhilash alias Khattu and Dadana Kumhar were convicted of
the offence of Sections 364A and 120(B) of IPC; appellant Pramod alias
Nilesh was convicted of the offence of Sections 364A and 302 IPC while
appellant Kamlendra Kushwaha was convicted of the offence of Section 302
IPC by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna, in the impugned
judgement delivered on 30.12.2019. For each charge, the appellants were
sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- with a default clause.
All the five appellants have preferred their individual criminal appeals,
which are being decided under this common judgement.
2. Facts of the case as revealed from prosecution story is that victim Sudhir
Pandey, aged 19-20 years, was staying with his uncle Subhash Chandra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
3 CRA-444-2020
Pandey in Satna for the purpose of his studies; on 23.06.2013, Sudhir
received a call on his mobile phone; he left the house informing Pooja that he
is leaving to play cricket; thereafter Sudhir never returned; a phone call was
received by Sanat Kumar Pandey, the father of victim, from the mobile
phone of Sudhir; the caller, identifying himself as Pramod Kachhi, informed
that Sudhir was kidnapped and a ransom of rupees six lacs was demanded; he
also informed that Sudhir was with him in the forest of Chandai and payment
of ransom amount was demanded by 25.06.2013, or else Sudhir would be
killed; Police Station, Kolgawan, district Satna, was informed upon which
FIR at Crime Number 627/2013 was registered for the offence of Section
364A IPC.
3. In the course of investigation, a juvenile delinquent was interrogated on
25.07.2013; he informed that along with appellants Pramod Kachhi,
Kamlendra Kushwaha and one Lala Chandaiya alias Ashok Kumar he had
kidnapped victim Sudhir Pandey on 23.06.2013; took him to the bushes
nearby a pond in the forest area and there Sudhir was murdered by
strangulation; he also informed that the mobile phone of Sudhir was with him
while rest of the items belonging to Sudhir were with appellants Pramod and
Kamlendra; the place of incident was identified by this juvenile delinquent
upon which the place was searched and a skeleton of male person along with
clothes and other items were recovered; these clothes were identified as
belonging to Sudhir by his relatives; the skeleton was sent for post-mortem
examination; though the post-mortem report did not confirm the nature of
death but on the basis of distance of this place from the house of victim and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
4 CRA-444-2020
the period of death, the trial court ruled out the possibility of suicide having
been committed by the victim, particularly for the fact that ransom calls were
being repeatedly received by his relatives and the phone of victim went
switched off unnaturally.
4. In the trial held, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as
aforesaid.
5. The appellants have argued these appeals contending that there was no
incriminating evidence against them and, therefore, the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence is bad in law; whereas State has clarified that the
prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the
appeals are liable to be dismissed. In the light of rival contentions of the
parties, let us examine the evidence showing involvement of appellants in
the alleged crime.
6. The documentary evidence produced before trial court are:-
(a) FIR (Ex.P-6) registered on 24.06.2013 at 00:30 hours while
Sudhir Pandey went missing at 12:00 noon on 23.06.2013 and the
ransom call was received around 10:00 p.m. on same night;
(b) the spot-map (Ex.P-8) prepared on 24.06.2013 showing the
residence of Subhash Chandra Pandey;
(c) the police statements of witnesses recorded during the course
of investigation:-
(i) of Pooja Kol and Subhash Chandra recorded on 24.06.2013,
(ii) of Shivkaran, Prahlad Kushwaha, Raja Ram and Brijesh
recorded on 26.06.2013,
(iii) of Sanat Kumar recorded on 30.06.2013,
(iv) of Manoj Pandey recorded on 01.07.2013,
(v) of Jahar Singh recorded on 02.07.2013, and
(vi) of Kallu alias Beni Prasad recorded on 12.07.2013.
7. These documentary pieces of evidence reflect that police was informed
on 24.06.2013 itself that there was a demand for ransom by appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
5 CRA-444-2020
Pramod Kachhi and police was getting lead from these witnesses regarding
whereabouts of Pramod Kachhi, his companions and also of the abducted
victim Sudhir Pandey. There was also a seizure of recording available on
mobile phone regarding demand of ransom, which was made on 10.07.2013.
8. The next line of documents was about arrest of Lala Chandaiya,
Maiyadeen, Natthulal Kushwaha, Ram Kumar Saket and Dadan Kushwaha
on 02.07.2013, of Damodar Kachhi on 08.07.2013 and Ram Avtar
Kushwaha on 21.07.2013. Incidentally, all these persons were acquitted by
the trial court itself. On 17.07.2013, appellant Abhilash alias Khuttu was
taken into custody and interrogated; his memorandum statements were
recorded and a mobile phone having two SIMs was recovered from his
possession. On 22.07.2013, appellant Dadan was arrested and during the
course of making these arrests, a skeleton along with some clothes was
recovered at the behest of juvenile delinquent.
9. On 25.07.2013 Baramadgi Panchnama of skeleton of a human male and
clothes was prepared; a mobile phone of Intex company was recovered from
the possession of juvenile delinquent; identification memo was prepared on
the date of recovery itself in which the clothes recovered from spot were
identified by the father and the uncle of victim as belonging to victim; blood
sample of Sanat Kumar Pandey was obtained for the purpose of DNA
examination and identification of skeleton; inquest memo was prepared and
skeleton was sent for post-mortem examination; the report could not give any
conclusive opinion about the cause of death, however the period of death
was estimated to be within three months; appellants Pramod alias Neelesh
alias Raju and Kamalendra were still absconding. The efforts were
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
6 CRA-444-2020
intensified to trace them. The DNA obtained from skeleton matched with the
DNA of Sanat Kumar Pandey, the father of victim Sudhir Pandey.
10. On 2.10.2013, both Pramod and Kamalendra were apprehended and
interrogated; on the information given by them, memorandum statements
were recorded; they were taken to the place of incident for recreation of
scene and they identified the place inside the bushes where Sudhir Pandey
was murdered by them; a rexine purse, a silver chain and a ring were
recovered from the house of appellant Pramod at his behest while from the
possession of appellant Kamalendra, a Maxima wrist watch having steel
coloured chain was recovered. The voice samples of Pramod Kushwaha and
Kamalendra Kushwaha were obtained and along with the conversation about
ransom demand recorded on the mobile phone of Sanat Kumar Pandey these
samples were sent to FSL.
11. Spot-map where the crime was committed was prepared. The transcript
panchnama of conversations regarding ransom demand recorded on the
mobile phone was prepared. The FSL report, regarding voice assimilation,
established that questioned voice in conversation regarding ransom demand
was the probable voice of Pramod Kushwaha whose specimen voice was sent
for examination but the specimen voice of appellant Kamlendra Kushwaha
could not be detected in recorded conversation.
12. In addition, to prove its case on the basis of oral testimony prosecution
examined total 25 witnesses. All the witnesses, who were giving leads about
Pramod Kachhi, his companions and the abducted boy, turned hostile and
they are: Shivkaran Kushwaha (P.W.1), Prahlad Prasad Kushwaha (P.W.4),
Jahar Prasad (P.W.8), Raja Ram Kushwaha (P.W.11), Beni Prasad Jain
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
7 CRA-444-2020
(P.W.14) and Brijesh Pyasi (P.W.17). Thus, testimony of these witnesses
does not support the prosecution case on the fact that they had seen any of
the appellants in the company of an 18-19 year old abducted boy.
13. Prosecution has relied upon the evidence regarding memorandum
statements, seizure and arrest but witnesses to these proceedings, namely
Jitendra Dubey (P.W.3), Suresh Yadav (P.W.16), Mandol Singh (P.W.19)
and Rameshwar Prasad Sen (P.W.20) were too declared hostile. Hence, their
statements are not of much significance. Similarly, statements of Dayaram
Baiga (P.W.2) and Abhishek Pandey (P.W.15) do not have any ramifications
on the findings as they were involved in the proceeding of seizure of skeletal
bones of Sudhir Pandey and taking the blood sample of Sanat Kumar
Pandey. Evidence on identification of skeleton being of Sudhir Pandey is not
under challenge here. Further, the statements of Ravi Kumar Sen (P.W.12),
who has denied the seizure of clothes and other articles from the place of
incident and preparation of inquest memo, is also not of much significance.
14. Statements of Pooja Pandey (P.W.5), Subhash Pandey (P.W.6), Sanat
Kumar Pandey (P.W.7) and Manoj Pandey (P.W.10) are relatable to the facts
of abduction and demand of ransom for release of Sudhir Pandey.
15. Pooja claims that on 23.06.2013 she attended a phone call received on
the mobile phone of Sudhir for him being in toilet. She did not give the name
of the caller in her court testimony nor did she give the details of the phone
number of the caller. It appears that she received the phone call somewhere
around 8:00 a.m. and Sudhir left the house at around 12:00 p.m. informing
her that he was going to play cricket. Her statements do not appear to have
any bearing much less on showing the involvement of any of the appellants
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
8 CRA-444-2020
in the alleged crime as they do not even show that Sudhir had left the house
to meet the person who had given him a call at around 8:00 a.m.
16. Statements of Subhash Pandey (P.W.6) reveal that victim Sudhir
Pandey was staying with him at the time of incident and from Pramod
Pandey, the maternal uncle (mama) of Sudhir Pandey, this witness came to
know about the incident of kidnapping. At the behest of this witness, the FIR
was registered which is Ex.P-6 and skeleton as well as clothes of Sudhir
were recovered in presence of this witness. This witness knows nothing
beyond these facts as no phone call was made to him regarding demand of
ransom nor he met any appellant in that reference. Interestingly, he has even
denied the fact that while getting the FIR scribed, he had given the
information about any mobile number from which a call was allegedly given
to Sudhir Pandey around 8:00 in the morning.
17. Sanat Kumar Pandey (P.W.7) is the father of victim Sudhir Pandey. He
claims to have received a phone call for ransom at 9:32 p.m. on 23.06.2013
i.e. the date of incident, which, according to him, was made from the mobile
phone of Sudhir Pandey. He discloses that in this call, the caller identifying
himself as Pramod Kachhi, told him about abduction of his son Sudhir and
insisted to pay rupees six lacs as ransom by 25.06.2013 otherwise his son
would be killed. He further states that an FIR was registered in Police
Station, Kolgawan, and then he met Superintendent of Police, Satna.
According to him, there was no recording facility in his mobile phone,
therefore a new mobile phone with recording facility was given to him which
he got activated with his own SIM card and on Wednesday he again received
a phone call from Pramod Kachhi. In this conversation, he claims to have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
9 CRA-444-2020
expressed his inability to pay the ransom amount but again on third day
when he was in the S.P. Office, Pramod Kachhi gave him a call and asked
him to talk by using other SIM.
18. In this subsequent conversation, it is claimed by witness that ransom
amount was settled at Rs.2,50,000/- and according to the directions given, he
went to Chandai village on 29.09.2013 along with ransom amount of
Rs.2,50,000/-. This witness claims that on reaching village, a boy met him
and told him that he was sent by Pramod Kachhi, this boy took the witness to
the house of appellant Dadana Kumhar where Ram Kumar was also present.
The witness further states that he handed over the money to Dadana Kumhar
which was counted by both Dadana and Ram Kumar. The money was then
divided among Dadana Kumhar, Ram Kumar and the boy who took the
witness to the house of Dadana Kumhar; he was then asked to leave giving
him assurance that his son would be released who never returned and only
his corpse was found.
19. In addition to these facts, Manoj Pandey (P.W.10), the maternal uncle
(Mama) of deceased, too has claimed to have received some ransom calls.
His cross-examination suggests that these calls were received by him on
30.06.2013 and 01.07.2013. According to him, a demand of Rs.3,00,000/-
was being made as ransom by some person named Pramod Kachhi but,
according to this witness, he didn't meet this person to pay ransom amount.
20. The testimony of Virendra Patel, (P.W.23) assumes significance here
who, during the period of investigation, was having the additional charge of
Cyber Cell, Satna. In his court testimony he has revealed that call details of
mobile phone numbers mentioned in his testimony were obtained by him
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
10 CRA-444-2020
from telecom companies and were provided by him to the Office of
Superintendent of Police, Satna, for the period June and July, 2013. His
statements also reveal that the certificate of Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act was prepared by him and not by the telecom company, the
source from where the information was collected. His statements have
apparently supported the defence when he makes an admission that the call
details record supplied by him did not include the name or phone numbers of
any of the appellants and these call details were related to other consumers
which were not arrayed as accused in this case. It appears that perhaps in the
light of this revelation, none of the four close relatives of deceased divulged
any information about the phone numbers from which they were getting
calls.
21. Having considered the evidence discussed and analysed so far, it is
manifestly clear that prosecution has not been able to connect any of the
appellants with the alleged crime regarding the phone calls made to the
family members of victim and the call detail records obtained during
investigation. One mobile phone with two SIMs was allegedly seized from
appellant Abhilash alias Kuttu but its use in the commission of crime has not
been established either on the basis of call detail records or IMEI number of
mobile phone used to make ransom calls. Thus, we come to the finding that
prosecution has failed miserably in proving that ransom calls received by the
relatives of deceased were being made from the mobile phones of appellants.
22. Prosecution has relied upon the voice sample test to bring home the
point that though the use of mobile phone numbers or SIM numbers of
appellants could not be established, but report of Central Forensic Science
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
11 CRA-444-2020
Laboratory, New Delhi, marked as Ex.P-38, establishes the prosecution case.
If we go through this report, it is prima facie visible that only two voice
samples were sent for forensic analysis and these voice samples belonged to
appellants Pramod Kachhi and Kamalendra. Therefore, report of Ex.P-38
can, in no eventuality, be read against rest of the appellants. Further, after
undertaking auditory examination of questioned voices recovered from
mobile recording, the voice of appellant Kamalendra Kushwaha could not be
detected in recorded conversation and, therefore, Ex.P-38 does not inculpate
even appellant Kamalendra in the alleged crime.
23. This report, although, shows results against appellant Pramod
Kushwaha (Kachhi), but the substance and essence of this result do not have
conclusiveness. The relevant portion of report reads as under:
"Hence, the voice marked Exs.Q-1(1)(P) to Q-1(9)(P) are
probable voice of the person (Shri Pramod Kushwaha) whose
specimen voice is marked as Ex.S-1(P)."
24. It can be argued successfully on logical implications that where the
evidence is only of probable nature, its conclusiveness is at on high stakes,
meaning thereby that it can only be referred to in corroboration and not as a
substantive piece of evidence.
25. During investigation, a raxine purse containing some cards, a silver
chain and a ring were recovered from appellant Pramod Kachhi and a wrist
watch of brand Maxima was recovered from appellant Kamlendra, but
evidence placed on record reveals that none of these items was placed before
the relatives of deceased for the purpose of identification. Therefore, in the
absence of any evidence on record that any article belonging to deceased was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
12 CRA-444-2020
recovered from the possession of any of the appellants, the prosecution case
is not proved on that count either.
26. Sanat Kumar Pandey (P.W.7) has claimed that in furtherance of
demand of rupees Rs.2,50,000/- as ransom money, he went to Chandaigaon
on 29.06.2013 where he met a boy who had taken him to the house of Dadna
Kumhar where Ram Kumar was also present. The name of boy who took the
witness to the house of Dadana Kumhar was not disclosed in the
examination-in- chief of this witness. The police statements of this witness
have been marked as Ex.D-2 in which he has disclosed that this boy was
Lala Chandaia. Interestingly, Lala Chandaia and Ram Kumar both have been
acquitted by the trial court and no application for leave to appeal has been
preferred by the State to challenge their acquittal. Therefore, statements of
Sanat Kumar Pandey (P.W.7) regarding payment of ransom money have
relevance qua appellant Dadana Kumhar alone.
27. The date of alleged payment of ransom money was 29.06.2013 and
appellant Dadana Kumhar was arrested on 22.07.2013 under arrest-memo,
marked as Ex.P-33. Admittedly, no test identification parade (TIP) was held
to establish his identity as a person to whom the ransom money was paid.
After a lapse of more than three years, this witness, Sanat Kumar Pandey,
(P.W.7) identifies Dadana Kumhar on 29.08.2016, during his court
testimony, as one of the recipients of ransom money. Inspector Anil
Bajpayee (P.W.21), who is the Investigating Officer in this case, has
admitted in para 35 of his cross-examination that he did not arrange any TIP,
but strangely gives no explanation for not holding it.
28. Sanat Kumar Pandey (P.W.7) has though identified appellant Dadana
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
13 CRA-444-2020
Kumhar and also acquitted person Ram Kumar during his court testimony,
but his statements are not reliable on this point. In paragraph 6 of his cross-
examination, contradicting his statements of examination-in-chief, he states
that police had asked him whether he can identify Ram Kumar but he
answered in negative. This shows that his testimony about identifying Ram
Kumar is bereft of truth. In examination-in-chief, he has testified that he
identifies appellant Dadana Kumhar but does not disclose how is he familiar
with this appellant. It can be argued here by prosecution that he made
payment to Dadana Kumhar, therefore he became familiar with his face but
the question is whether the witness confirms this fact.
29. In para 6 of his cross-examination, Sanat Kumar Pandey (P.W.6) has
revealed that he was summoned by police in Mahila Police Station where
Dadana Kumhar was shown to him. His court testimony and police
statements do not reveal from what source he got the information that the
house he was taken to in Chandai village belonged to Dadana Kumhar. It is
not the prosecution case that witness was given the address of the house of
Dadana Kumhar and after tracing it he reached there. The prosecution has put
a case that he was taken to that house by another person. Thus, evidence on
identification of appellant as Dadana Kumhar and also on identifying the
house belonging to him is very weak in nature. Admittedly, Sanat Kumar
Pandey was never taken to Chandai village to identify the house where the
ransom amount was allegedly paid by him.
30. It is very strange that after taking Dadana Kumhar in custody on
22.07.2013, the Investigating Officer Anil Bajpayee (P.W.21) did not record
his memorandum statement for recovery or tracing out the ransom money
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
14 CRA-444-2020
allegedly received by him from the father of the deceased. It is also relevant
to mention here that Ram Bihari, who had accompanied Sanat Kumar Pandey
to the house of Dadana Kumhar and witnessed the alleged payment of
ransom money, has not been examined as witness.
31. From the aforesaid analysis of evidence on every relevant aspect, we
find no substantial evidence against any of the five appellants to hold them
guilty. The prosecution has not been able to prove either through direct
evidence or through circumstances that these appellants were involved in
abduction, demanding and receiving ransom or committing murder of Sudhir
Pandey. The prosecution has not been able to establish that any of them used
their mobile phones for asking the victim to join them, or were "last seen" in
the company of victim or used their mobile phones/SIM cards to make any
calls to the relatives of deceased for demand of ransom or received any
ransom amount or were found in possession of articles belonging to
deceased. Even the voice sample test result against appellant Pramod Kachhi
is itself a very weak piece of evidence and has not been corroborated by any
substantial evidence. Consequently these appeals succeed.
32. The appellants are hereby acquitted of all the charges found proved
against them by the trial court under the impugned judgment. Appellants, if
in custody, shall be released forthwith if their custody is not required in any
other case. The bail-bonds of other appellants, who are already on bail, stand
discharged forthwith. The fine amount deposited by appellants, if any, be
refunded to them.
33. The directions given by trial court regarding disposal of property shall
be complied with.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21084
15 CRA-444-2020
34. Let a copy of this judgment along with its record be send to the trial
Court for information and necessary compliance.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps
