Chandrabhan Dheemer vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10106 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 10212 of 2022 (CHANDRABHAN DHEEMER Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 04-07-2023 Shri A. S. Parihar - Advocate for the appellant.

Smt. Seema Sahu - Panel Lawyer for the State.

Record of the Court below is available. Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal being arguable, is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on I.A No.20959/2022, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, moved on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and under Section 468 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.3,000/-, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The learned trial Court has erred in

not appreciating the fact that there are material omissions and contradictions in the versions of the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that there is no likelihood of the hearing of appeal in near future. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the application and prays for its rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the court below.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/5/2023 10:32:08 AM

This application for suspension has been pressed upon the fact that the appellant is in custody for almost last nine months. The judgment under challenge shows that RI for four years each was awarded under sections 420 and 468 of IPC. In the light of awarded sentence, the period of nine months undergone in custody by the appellant cannot be the only reason to suspend the sentence. The judgment shows that the appellant forged a sale-deed as well as Voter ID card for the purpose of cheating and by using these documents, he misrepresented himself as the true owner of the property, consequently deceived the complainant to enter into sale transaction against the amount of Rs.30,80,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon para 65 of the judgment in which it is mentioned that the proof of payment of money is not available on record. Even then, the act of forgery for the purpose of cheating is found to be substantiated by the evidence. It is noticeable that Dharmendra Pratap Singh (P.W.7) is the person in whose name the sale-deed was executed and he has claimed in para 2 that his statement that an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- was paid to the appellant.

Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the application is dismissed.

List for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

ps

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 7/5/2023 10:32:08 AM