Sudarshan Yadav @ Sudershan Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2630 Jhar

                               -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Revision No.469 of 2023
1.Sudarshan Yadav @ Sudershan Yadav
2.Dilram Yadav                                ..... ... Petitioners
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand                       .... .... Opposite Party
                         --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.

--------

04/4th August, 2023 I.A. No.6117 of 2023

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of

the petitioner no.2 - Dilram Yadav under Section 389(1)

Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence passed by the learned Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in connection with

Madhupur P.S. Case No.117 of 1990, corresponding to G.R.

No.607 of 1990 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.08 of 1989 and the

same has been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-

II, Deoghar vide judgment dated 21st January, 2023 passed in

Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 has submitted that the

learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court both had

upheld the conviction of the petitioner no.2 basing its finding on

the judgment of civil court wherein the validity of the deed had

been challenged. It is further submitted that the learned appellate

court has not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper

perspective.

3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently

opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner no.2 and contended that the impugned order passed by

the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court bears

no infirmity and same needs no interference by this Court. He has

further submitted that it is not a fit case for suspending the

sentence inflicted by the learned trial court.

4. As per prosecution case, one Hari Muni Devi filed a complaint

petition against four persons including the petitioners before the

learned court of C.J.M., Deoghar vide P.C.R. No.08 of 1989. The

said complaint was sent to Madhupur police station under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis of that police registered Madhupur

P.S. Case No.117 of 1990. The allegations levelled by Hari Muni

Devi in the complaint petition is that her husband late Bhola

Singh, who is not more, had sold 1 Bigha 14 Kathas of land which

remained in their possession including the House standing thereon

and same was given to appellant Sudershan Yadav to run a Khatal

business, four years ago. That on 04.04.1987 her husband expired

and before death he was totally confined to bed for 4 months. By

taking advantage of the situation and got executed illegal sale

deed no. 2624 dated 10.03.1987 for the tenanted land etc, the

accused No. 1 Sudershan Yadav in collusion and in connivance

with other accused persons forged the Signature of Bhola Singh

and impersonated someone else as him before the Registrar of

Assurances Kolkata and got him illegally identified by other

persons who knew fully well that impersonator was not Bhola

Singh, and got forged sale deed registered and thereafter the

accused Sudershan Yadav by using same forged sale deed as

genuine executed a sale deed in favour of Jagardeo Rai with

respect to 14 dhurs of land on 14.09.1988 for a sum of Rs.

21,000/- vide Registered Sale Deed no. 2596 dated 14.09.1988.

Accused Sudershan Yadav got the land mutated on the basis of

that forged deed vide Mutation Case (No. 84/1988-89 in the office

of Anchal Adhikari, Madhupur.

5. The appellate court upheld the conviction of Sudarshan Yadav for

the offence under Sections 420/34, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC

and the petitioner no.2 Dilram Yadav was convicted under

Section 420/34 of the IPC and he has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years along with a fine of

Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to

further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three

months.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 has submitted that the

judgment, wherein the impugned sale deed which were alleged to

be executed fraudulently and also were the result of forgery as

well, though has been cancelled by way of decree passed by the

Civil Court, the same has been challenged before the Hon'ble High

Court and the appeal is still pending.

7. In view of the submissions made and keeping in view the nature

of the offence and the sentence imposed by the learned trial

court, I am of the view that it is a fit case for keeping the

sentence in abeyance.

8. Accordingly, the I.A. No.6117 of 2023 stands allowed.

9. In consequence, thereof, the petitioner no.2 Dilram Yadav is

directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur, Deoghari in connection with

Madhupur P.S. Case No.117 of 1990 corresponding to G.R. No.607

of 1990 arising out of P.C.R. Case No.08 of 1989.

Cr. Revision No.469 of 2023

10. Admit.

11. Call for the Lower Records from the court concerned and list

this case for hearing as per it's seriatim.

(Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit