Lekhraj Gahlot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9729 MP

                                                                1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                        CRA No. 8456 of 2022
                                             (LEKHRAJ GAHLOT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                          Dated : 27-06-2023
                                   Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                   Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the
                          respondent/State.

(1) Heard on I.A.No.722/2023 an application filed by the appellant under Section 391(1) of Cr.P.C. for recording of additional evidence by the trial

Court.

(2) This appeal has been preferred before this Court challenging the judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No.193/2016 wherein the appellant has been held guilty of offence under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

(3) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court in para-56 of the judgment held that "vfHk;kstu lk{kh ih: flag n okjk vkjksih ys[kjkt n okjk edku cspdj iSls nsus o mlds firk xeuyky ds uke gksus o firk n okjk edku u cspus nsus

ds rF; dks izsekf.kr fd;k gSA "which is wrongly believed and relied upon since the

present appellant himself is the owner of the house. He further submitted that without examining the documents of the said house in question the trial Court has assumed that the house belonged to the deceased and therefore he was not letting the appellant to sell it to repay his debt, therefore, it is necessary to take additional evidence on that document to lead justice. He further submitted that he filed the questionable document with the appeal which clearly establishes that

Signature Not Verified the house was owned by the appellant himself. Hence, prays for allowing the Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:21:47 PM

application and to send the record back to the trial Court to take additional evidence on that questionable document of the ownership of the house situated at 6, Choice Palace Colony, Indore in the interest of justice.

(4) Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the application and prays for its rejection.

(5) Section 391(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as under :-

"391(1) - In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate."

(6) After perusing the trial Court record, it is found that the questionable document was in existence during trial and appellant's counsel was unable to convince the Court that why this document was not produced before the trial Court during the trial. It is found that the counsel for the appellant is trying to fulfill the lacuna of evidence against him.

(7) In view of the aforesaid, at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that I.A.No.722/2023 is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

(8) Also heard on I.A. No.15065/2022, which is first application filed under Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant -Lekhraj Gahlot.

(9) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from infirmities with regard to the missing link evidence recorded before the trial Court and there are so many immaterial contradiction and omissions in the prosecution evidence and the sale deed was not produced before the trial Court by which the trial Court assumed that the house belongs

Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 6/28/2023 5:21:47 PM

to the deceased. The appellant is in jail since 20.09.2019 uptil now and final hearing of the appeal is likely to take sufficient long period of time in near future. Hence, prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.

(10) Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the prayer for suspension of sentence and prays for its rejection.

(11) Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence to the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A.No.15065/2022 stands rejected. Certified copy as per rules.

                               (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                                           (HIRDESH)
                                        JUDGE                                                    JUDGE

                          RJ




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 6/28/2023
5:21:47 PM