Shrilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7096 MP

                            1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
             HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANJULI PALO
                ON THE 11th. Day OF MAy, 2022

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3021 of 2020
     Between:-
1.   REVJI S/O BABU , AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: LABOUR RIDHOURA
     P.S MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   OCHHA S/O GOPAL , AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: LABOUR RIDHOURA
     P.S MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   AMARLAL S/O SHYAMRAO , AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
     RIDHOURA P.S MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   RADHELAL S/O REVJI , AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION: LABOUR RIDHOURA
     P.S MULTAI, DISTRICT BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                APPELLANTS

     (BY SHRI PRADEEP SINGH CHOUHAN, ADVOCATE)

     AND

     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
     POLICE STATION MULTAI DISTT. BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                RESPONDENT

     (BY SHRI D.K. PAROHA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                                2




              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2911 of 2020

     Between:-

     SHRILAL S/O BABU , AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
     GRAM RIDHORA P.S. MULTAI DIST BETUL
     (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                     APPELLANT

     (BY SHRI ABHINAV DUBEY, ADVOCATE)

     AND

     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
     P.S. MULTAI DIST BETUL P.S. MULTAI
     DIST BETUL (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                                     RESPONDENT

     (BY SHRI D.K. PAROHA, GOVT. ADVOCATE)


      These appeals coming on for final hearing this day, the court
passed the following: -

                          JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal No.2911/2020 has been filed by the

appellant-Shrilal against his conviction under Sections 420/120-

B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B & 471/120-B of the I.P.C. Criminal

Appeal No.3021/2020 has been filed by co-accused/appellants,

namely, Revji, Ochha, Amarlal and Radhelal against their

conviction Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B &

471/120-B of the I.P.C. Both the appeals have been heard

together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated

16.03.2020 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Multai,

District Betul in Sessions Trial No.204/2015, whereby appellants have

been convicted and sentenced as under :-

 Sections            Act                          Imprisonment
420/120-B     Indian Penal Code       R.I. for 03-03 years       with   fine
                                      Rs.2000/- - 2000/-
467/120-B     Indian Penal Code       R.I. for 03-03 years       with   fine
                                      Rs.2000/- - 2000/-
468/120-B     Indian Penal Code       R.I. for 03-03 years       with   fine
                                      Rs.2000/- - 2000/-
471/120-B     Indian Penal Code       R.I. for 03-03 years       with   fine
                                      Rs.2000/- - 2000/-

3. Both the cases were heard analogously and are being decided

by this common order.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainants

made written complaint that the appellants-accused persons by making

forged and fabricated documents/consent papers regarding consent of

complainant Kaluram and then on 01.08.2014 they withdrawn the

amount of Rs.19,48,886/- from the Punjab National Bank, Branch

Dunava. On the basis of complainant, the police registered Crime

No.643/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463,

464, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 34 of the I.P.C. against the

appellants. However, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

filed against the appellant before the concerned Court.

5. After committal of the case, learned trial Court framed the

charges under Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B &

471/120-B of the I.P.C. against the appellants. Appellants pleaded

their innocence and did not examine any witness. The learned Trial

Court found the appellants guilty of committing aforesaid offences and

sentenced them as mentioned above.

6. Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant

Kaluram made a written complaint to the effect that land

bearing Khasra No. 766 area about 8 acres is their joint

property. The aforesaid land was acquired by the State

Government for construction of Badam Doh Reservoir. In lieu

of acquisition, the amount of Rs. 19,48,886/- was granted as

compensation vide cheque No. 0016478. which was in the

name of all the account holders. Aforesaid cheque was

received by Rewaji appellant who deposited the same for

encashment in the account No. 1057001700015131, in Punjab

National Bank, Branch Dunava. No objection was received

from the consenters on the stamp paper of denomination of

Rs. 50/-. On such stamp papers photographs and signatures of

the consenters were obtained fraudulantly by affixing

photographs of some others and forging their signatures. On

06.09.2013. The compensation amount was distributed

amongst the appellants by playing fraud. Out of compensation

amount Jeyna ought to have received Rs. 1,00,000/-.

7. The appellants have challenged the aforesaid findings on the

grounds that the trial Court has wrongly convicted them. None of the

independent witness has supported the prosecution case. Neither the

compensation amount has been deposited in the account of appellants,

nor they withdrew the same. The findings of the trial Court are contrary

to the law and facts. The trial Court has not appreciated the defence of

accused. There are some material irregularites and infirmities in the

prosecution case. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned

judgment of the Trial Court and appellants be acquitted from the

charges leveled against them.

8. Learned Government Advocate has opposed the

contentions of the appellants and argued the matter in support

of the findings recorded by the trial Court.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

10. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Khasra No. 766,

area about 8 acres situated at Village Righora is the joint prop-

erty belonging to the complainant namely Kaluram and Anan -

dram, Karu, Ochha, Anjani, Shyamrao, Rukmani Bai, Hari,

Girdhari, Munna, Durga Jhular, Lallu and Shrilal, which was

acquired by the State for construction of a Badam Doh Dam

and its compensation to the tune of Rs.19,48,886/- was

awarded in favour of joint owners of the land through cheque

No. 0016478. It is also not in dispute that the amount was

credited in the account of appellant (Rewaji) in account No.

1057001700015131, in Punjab National Bank, Branch Dunava.

The complainant Kaluram (PW-10) stated that appellant mis -

represented and prepared the forged and fabricated documents

being misrepresented by the complainant and others and taken

their signatures. The appellant prepared a consent letter in

their names. It is important to mention here that it is claimed

that on the consent letter Ex P-21, in place of Yamuna Bai, Sita

w/o Rewaji signed, in place of Durga Bai, Hemlata signed, in

place of Manohar, Anandrao signed but some of the interested

witnesses namely Karu (PW-1), Shyamrao (PW-2), Hemlata

(PW-3), Sitabai (PW-4), Bansilal (PW-5), Anjana (PW-6) and

Yamuna Bai(PW-11) turned hostile. They have neither sup -

ported the prosecution case nor corroborated the testimony of

complainant-Kaluram(PW-10).

11. Nirmala (PW-9) also turned hostile. She has stated that

her brother-in-law Kaluram told her that they have received

compensation amount, therefore, she narrated all these things

against the appellants to police in her statement recorded under

Section 161 of CrPC. But in para 6, she stated that their joint

family was neither partitioned nor she was aware about share

of her late husband in the amount of compensation nor any

forged letter was prepared before her. Her husband or her name

were also not mentioned in the disputed consent letter Ex P-21

Therefore, evidence is hear-say evidence and conviction of the

appellants cannot be treated on the basis her testimony.

12. Complainant Kaluram (PW-10) in his chief-examination

also supported the prosecution case but in cross-examination,

he admitted that appellant namely Shrilal, Hari, Girdhari and

Lallu are his real brothers and Yamuna, Jhular and Durga are

his real sisters. Nirmala is her sister-in-law and Late Smt.

Jayna Bai was his mother. From his statement, it is proved that

he has no knowledge about that what was his share in the said

amount. In para-9, on the one hand, he admitted that on the

basis of the consent of some share-holders in the property, the

entire compensation amount was deposited in the account of

the appellant Rewaji. The entire amount was withdrawn by the

appellant Rewaji and they have received nothing from the

compensation amount. On the other hand, in para-10 he has

admitted that because he himself, Nirmala, Durga and Manohar

received their share in the compensation amount, therefore,

appellant Rewaji again deposited his share in the account of

Punjab National Bank Branch Dunawa. In para-11, he admitted

that he never went to the Bank to withdraw the amount.

Similarly Nirmala and Durga were also not proceeded to take

their amount.

13. In clear words, he also admitted that he had not signed in

consent letter Ex. P-21 for taking the amount. In para-18, he

admitted that he never stated anything against the appellant

Amarlal. Before him Amarlal did not annex his photograph nor

signed on the consent letter Ex. P-21. He clearly admitted that

he had enmity with Amarlal and others since long time. In

para-21, he admitted that the appellant Rewaji is an old person

aged about 65 to 70 years and the disputed land was a joint

family property belonging to them. In para-23, he admitted that

he is only entitled to get his share of Rs. 30,451/- from the

entire compensation amount. In para-24, he admitted that the

land was joint property and not partitioned. The appellants

took defence that there was enmity between them, hence, the

complainant wanted more amount of the compensation. His

share still has deposited in the Bank account. This fact has also

been admitted by Kaluram-complainant (PW-10) that Shrilal is

his real brother and he admitted that Anandrao, Anjani,

Devaki, Ochha, Karu, Jhular, Shyamrao and Bansilal and

others were the consenting party. They have stated nothing

against the appellants. In para-34, he admitted that their share

in the compensation amount is still deposited in the Bank. It

was also come on the record that properties were joint

properties, hence, entire compensation amount was deposited

in one account holder belongs to Rewaji. T.I. Uhare (PW-12) is

a material witness but also did not support the statement of the

complainant.

14. It would be worth referring to Section 471 of IPC which

stipulates that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as

genuine any document or electronic record, shall be punished

in the same manner as if he had forged such document or

electronic record. If the material available on record is

appreciated in proper perspective, the aforesaid fraudulent or

dishonest commission of offence is missing.

15. Therefore, this Court has come to the conclusion that

main ingredients of cheating and dishonesty are missing in this

case against the appellants. There was enmity between the

complainant and other joint holders of the property. Other joint

holders have given their consent in favour of the appellants.

They have nothing stated against the appellants although hand

writing expert proved that on the consent letter Ex.P-21,

signature of Kaluram is different from his admitted signature

but the appellants have never taken share of the Kaluram.

Karu, Shyamrao, Hemlata, Sitabai, Bansilal and Anjana have

not supported the complainant's testimony nor the prosecution

story. Hence, charges under Sections 420/120-B, 467/120-B,

468/120-B & 471/120-B of the I.P.C have not been proved.

Therefore, the appeals are allowed. Appellants are liable to be

acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

(Smt. Anjuli Palo)

Judge

Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY Date: 2022.05.17 14:39:48 +05'30'