The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dayaram Soni
2022 Latest Caselaw 1481 MP

                                  1
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                              BEFORE
                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                 &
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SHARMA
                       ON THE 2nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022

              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21208 of 2020

        Between:-
        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
        DEHAT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
        (BY Shri S.K. Kashyap, learned Government Advocate for the
        applicant/State. )

        AND

        DAYARAM SONI S/O LATE BHAIYALAL SONI ,
        AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MOTEKA MOHALLA
        TIKAMGARH     TEHSIL    AND     DISTT.
        TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS


                    (Heard through Video Conferencing)
      This leave to appeal is coming on for admission. this day, JUSTICE
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA passed the following:
                                   ORDER

Heard on the question of admission.

Applicant/State has preferred this application under section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22/01/2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T. No. 116/2018, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charge under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. Although, it is alleged that on 27/11/2012 respondent/accused executed a sale deed with regard to Khasra No. 58/103 ad measuring area 1200 sq. ft. situated at village Maharajpura, District-Tikamgarh in favour of complainant on the basis of forged documents. However, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused.

Looking to the findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraph nos. 21 to 23, we are of the considered view that the trial court has not committed any illegality or perversity in acquitting the respondent/accused for the aforesaid offence. Hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, being devoid of any merits, present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

                                          (SUJOY PAUL)                               (ARUN KUMAR SHARMA)
                                             JUDGE                                          JUDGE
                                    skt




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR
TIWARI
Date: 2022.02.03 14:06:27 IST