Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bittu @ Ram Sanehi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
1 CRA-1632-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 27th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1632 of 2017
SMT. BITTI BAI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Lawkush Prasad Mishra - Advocate for the appellant No.1.
Shri Vineet Mishra- Advocate for appellant No.2.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for appellant No.3.
Miss Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1643 of 2017
BITTU @ RAM SANEHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Lawkush Prasad Mishra - Advocate for the appellant.
Miss Shweta Yadav - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Devnarayan Mishra
Both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment, hence, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
2 CRA-1632-2017
same are decided and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These present appeals have been preferred by the appellants being
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment
imposed upon them by the Special Judge (M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan
Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (For short " the Act, 1981), District
Panna vide order dated 16.02.2017 passed in Special Case No.17/2015 (Old
No.11/2012).
3. In nutshell, the prosecution case before the trial Court was that the
victim Kashiram Yadav (PW-5) on 20.03.2012 at about 8:30 PM went to his
field to guard his wheat crop. On the next day on 21.03.2012, when he did
not return till 12:00 PM in his house, a search was made by his family
members but the victim was not found and thereafter his son Ramdev (PW-
12) lodged missing person report in Police Station - Ajaygarh (Exhibit-P/12).
This was also entered in the general diary of Police Station (Exhibit -P/21).
Missing person report No.1/12 was registered. On 25.03.2012 at night, the
victim Kashiram Yadav (PW-5) returned to his home and on 26.03.2012, he
went to Police Station Ajaygarh to lodge FIR along with his relatives
Naththu Yadav (PW-9), Jagat dev (PW-17). His statements were recorded
and it was disclosed that when the appellant was in his field at the night, the
appellants Kalla Yadav, Buttu Yadav and Jagprasad Yadav and two other
persons reached and caught hold him and fastened his hands with towel. One
co-accused was having gun of 312 bore gun. Appellant Buttu Yadav was
having lathi and Japrasad was having lathi and farsa and another persons
was also having a gun and katta. They abducted him and brought him
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
3 CRA-1632-2017
Bhatiya of Bachhon. Appellant Kalla Yadav caught hold the victim and three
offenders went from the spot and Kalla demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as a ransom
and on 25.03.2012 when he got the amount of ransom from his son, he
released the victim and the victim returned to his home.
4. After usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class and after commitment, the case was sent for
the Special Court.
5. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant- Bitti Bai for
the offence punishable under Sections 364 A of IPC r/w 120-B of IPC and
under Sections 11/13 of the Act, 1981 and against the appellant - Buttu @
Ram Sanehi, Jagprasad and Kalla for the offence punishable under Sections
364 A of IPC, Sections 25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 11/13 of the Act of
1981. Against the co-accused Gillu @ Ramprasad only under Section 364 A
r/w Section 11/13 of the Act, 1981. The appellants abjured the guilt and
prayed for trial.
6. The trial Court examined the prosecution witnesses and the
appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and passed the impugned judgment
by which the appellants have been acquitted from the charges under Sections
25-B and 25/27 of the Arms Act and convicted the appellants as per stated in
Paragraph-1 of the impugned judgment.
7. Learned counsel appearing on the behalf of appellants No.1 and 3
Bitti Bai and Kalla has submitted that the victim has never stated that the
appellant- Bitti Bai had ever demanded money from the abducted person's
son or his family members. The victim's son, Ramdev (PW-12) contacted to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
4 CRA-1632-2017
appellant - Bitti Bai and she told that they have to pay the money but it does
not mean that this appellant was involved in the case. Furthermore, it is
submitted that there was a dispute of the agricultural land between the
brothers of Bitti Bai as there was a transaction between abducted person and
the brothers of Bitti Bai and there was a civil suit pending in Civil Court,
Ajaygarh and being the relative they have been falsely implicated. The
statements of prosecution witnesses that the victim was kept as a hostage in
an open place cannot be believed. There was no armed guard. The place was
not closed any how and the victim just after returning has not lodge any FIR
in the police station. There is no evidence that any demand was made from
the abducted person or his family members. Thus, no case is made out
against the appellants. The trial Court has not considered all these aspects. It
is further submitted that no identification pared was held.
8. Learned counsel for appellant No.2- Jagprasad has submitted that
it is alleged that Jagprasad came there and identified the victim and said
that, that one is Kashi Prasad and stated that shoot him but except that no role
of Jagprasad has been told by the victim himself and only on the ground that
he had identified the victim, he cannot be held liable for abduction. It may be
that the offenders took the appellant by force and for the identification and to
tell the field of the abducted person and he has told that he is Kashi Prasad.
Regarding that "shoot him", he has stated in his statement mean that he asked
the appellants to kill him but that act was not performed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Buttu @ Ram Sanehi has
submitted that no role of the appellant has been stated by the victim and he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
5 CRA-1632-2017
has been falsely implicated in the case. The case as stated by the victim is
highly improbable and there was no money transaction and has also
submitted that trial Court has convicted him only on the statement of victim
Kashiram (PW-5) and Ramdev (PW-12). No recovery has been proved as per
the law, hence the appellant be acquitted.
10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
11. The victim/abducted person Kashiram Yadav (PW-5) has stated
that on the date of incident, he went to guard his wheat crop at the field at
night. He slept and at the mid night he heard sound of animals movement in
the torch light he saw that 5 persons armed with weapons in which two were
having gun, two were having katta and one was having Farsa. Buttu was
having Katta and Kalla was having a country made gun. Jagprasad was
having a Farsa. All the accused persons reached near his hut/cottage,
Jagprasad told them that in this hut Kashiram is sleeping and the appellant
Buttu @ Ram Sanehi asked his name and when he alighted from the hut
Kalla assaulted him by a slap and Kalla asked the Buttu to fasten his hand by
the towel and his hands were fastened in the back side with the towel.
Jagprasad has stated to Kalla to shoot him. They searched his hut/cottage
only a torch and a mobile was found and Buttu put on his jacket and they
asked regarding his son Ramdev. Kalla put the gun on his chest and after that
removed. After making him hostage brought him Kivariya (Khirkiya) by
assaulting him they brought him in the field through Khumanganj. After
crossing the river the make fire. They were carried him in Bilahari village
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
6 CRA-1632-2017
but Buttu went after placing them in a closed campus. Kalla was there and
has given food to him and on 25.03.2012, the victim was released as they got
the money from his family members and threatened him not disclose the
story to any person.
12. The fact abduction is supported by Ramdev (PW-12), he clearly
stated that when his father went to guard his wheat crop and when he did not
returned on the next day, he lodged missing person report. Missing person
report is Exhibit- P/12 and this fact is clearly mentioned that on
20.03.2012 after 8:30 PM to 21.03.2012 at 06:30 AM. his father Kashiram is
missing. H.P. Awasthi (PW-19), Sub-Inspector has deposed that on
21.03.2012, he was posted at Police Chowki Hanumatur of Police Station
Ajaygarh. Ramdev (PW-12) has lodged a missing person report of his father
Kashiram that was written down as Missing Person Report No.1/12 i.e
Exhibit-P/12. This missing person report was lodged on the basis that in the
night his father went to guard his field but did not return till 21.04.2012 at
14:30 AM, he also entered information in daily diary of the Police Station
i.e. Exhibit-P/21, which is annexed with the record as Exhibit-P/21-C and
this witness has also stated that he informed the SDOP, Ajaygarh and SHO,
Ajaygarh.
13. Thus, it is clear that on 20.03.2012 at 8:30 PM, Kashiram went to
his field to guard his wheat crop and from there he was missing and returned
on 25.03.2012. The statements of these two witnesses is further supported by
the missing person report (Exhibit-P/12). The victim was missing, it has also
been supported by the witness Roshan Yadav (PW-4), Pyarelal (PW-6) and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
7 CRA-1632-2017
Ramkumar (PW-7) and on the point of involvement of the accused persons,
the victim Kashiram (PW-5) has clearly mentioned the name of these
appellants.
14. The witness Ramdev (PW-12) has stated that after lodging
missing person report, he contacted Bitti Bai, mother of Kalla and she has
stated that for releasing of the victim, they have to incur Rs.3,00,000/- and he
arranged Rs.2,00,000/-and paid to Bitti Bai in front of Suresh Kumar (PW-
8). Appellant- Bitti Bai said this is very less amount and he has requested that
he has no arrangement for more money, the she has assured that his father
will return in the night and in the night his father returned. In the thorough
cross-examination of the witness, nothing has been brought on record against
which the statement of this witness can be held to be false.
15. Suresh Kumar (PW-8) has also supported the fact that along with
Ramdev (PW-12), he visited the village Bilahari where they met with the
appellant Bitti Bai mother of the appellant Kalla and has handed over
Rs.2,00,000/- to Bitti Bai and on the same night, Kashiram returned to his
home. In Parargraph-17 of his cross-examination, this witness denied the
suggestion that he did not accompanied with Ramdev (PW-12).
16. Thus, it is clear that abduction was made to secure the ransom
money. Basically, it was demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and after negotiation it was
settled to Rs.2,00,000/- that was handed over to appellant Bitti Bai on the
behalf of the accused persons. From the statement that Bitti Bai asked the
victim's son Ramdev (PW-12) that they have to spend money to secure the
return of his father and on her demand he had given the money. Thus, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
8 CRA-1632-2017
clear that demand of ransom money was made.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the
principle laid down in the case of Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh
reported in 2024 Live Law (SC) 7 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has laid down
that the basic ingredients for Section 364A of IPC that it must be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that person was kidnapped or abducted and
thereafter demand of ransom was made coupled with the threat to life of a
person who has been kidnapped or abducted, must be there and submitted
that in this case, the factor of threat and demand is not proved.
18. On the point, if the statement of victim is minutely observed, it is
clear that when the appellant firstly reached on the spot Buttu @ Ramsanehi
was having fire arm and lathi. Kalla was having a gun and other unknown
person was having fire arms and threaten that they will kill him and when the
victim's son Ramdev (PW-12) directly contacted Bitti Bai, she clearly
disclosed that if he arranges the money, his father will be released.
19. As per report of medical officer, who examined the victim after
recovery, has stated that in the left knee there was abrasion measuring 2x2
cm that was caused by hard and blunt object and the victim was complaining
pain in back and right cheek. He has proved MLC report as Exhibit-P/20.
The victim Kashiram (PW-5) has also stated that they assaulted him during
the offence and when the money was not received, Buttu threatened that if
money not received they will kill him and when Kalla was asked how to
dispose of the body, Buttu told him that he will arrange for that and they
released him when money was received.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
9 CRA-1632-2017
20. Thus, ingredients of the offence as stated in the above case and
as per the case of Shaik Ahmed vs. State Of Telangana reported in 2021 (9)
SCC 59 when the language of the section there must be
kidnapping/abduction, the accused threatened to cause of death or hurt to
such person or by his conduct gives rise to reasonable apprehension that such
person may be threaten to death or hurt or cause hurt or death to such person
in order to compel the government body or organisation or the person for
doing or abstaining or doing any act or to pay ransom. In this case, after
abduction, victim was kept in confinement and he was given threatening and
when the PW-12 anyhow got the information and contacted Appellant No.1-
Bitti Bai, she clearly told him that his father will be released when he will
spend Rs.2 to 3 lakhs and when money was paid, the victim was released.
21. Act of causing injury is not compulsory but to cause
apprehension is sufficient. It is also clear from the evidence on record that
Kalla has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act
but Buttu @ Ram Sanehi was having a Farsa and ammunition and material
arm with these appellants had abducted the victim that is sufficient to give
the apprehension that he may be killed and he will not release till they got the
money.
22. On the point that what was the role of Appellant - Jagprasad, as
per the FIR (Exhibit-P/29), it is stated that accused Kalla Yadav, Buttu @
Ramsanhehi Yadav and Jagprasad Yadav came on the spot with some
unknown persons and caught hold the victim. Jagprasad was having Farsa
and lathi. Jagprasad identifying the victim stated that he should not be left
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
10 CRA-1632-2017
and killed him and went from the spot. Except this, nothing has been brought
on the record. In the deposition before the Court, Kashiram (PW-5) has
stated that Jagprasad was standing on the spot and told that in this
hut/cottage, Kashiram is sleeping and this cottage is of Kashiram. After that
accused persons verified the fact, Jagprasad asked that shoot him, except this
it has not been stated that after that this appellant- Jagprasad has followed
him or make any conversation with the appellants or the family members of
the victim.
23. Learned counsel has further submitted that if the statement is
taken into consideration in toto, the appellant Jagprasad may be held only
liable for abetment for murder i.e. punishable under Section 115 of the IPC
but not for the offence punishable under Section 364 A of IPC.
24. We have considered this aspect as the appellant Jagprasad was
the resident of the same village and he pointed out the place where the victim
was sleeping and he may having some grudge against the victim i.e. he has
not informed the family members of the victim but he may be liable for other
offence but It is also worth mention that active participation of this appellant
is not proved. It may be possible that this appellant was brought by the co-
accused persons from his field to identify the place where the victim is
sleeping and after disclosing the identity and place, he has left the spot.
Hence, he is entitled for benefit of doubt.
25. Thus, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case,
the appeal regarding appellant No.2-Jagprasad (in Criminal Appeal
No.1632/2017) is allowed giving the benefit of doubt, the appellant-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15450
11 CRA-1632-2017
Jagprasad is acquitted from the charges under Sections 364A of IPC r/w
Section 11/13 of the Act, 1981 and his conviction and sentence is quashed.
26. Appeals regarding rest of the appellant No.1- Bitti Bai w/o Beta
@ Bittan Yadav, appellant No.3- Kalla s/o Bittan Yadav (in
Cr.A.No.1632/2017) and appellant - Buttu @ Ram Sanehi s/o Bhagwat
Yadav (in Cr.A.No.1643/2017) are hereby dismissed and judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is affirmed.
27. The appellant- Jagprasad (in Cr. A.No.1632/2017), if not required
in any other case, shall be released forthwith.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
VB*
