Yogendra Singh Sori vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7632 MP

                                                             1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                           CRA No. 11245 of 2022
                          (YOGENDRA SINGH SORI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
                          Dated : 10-05-2023
                                Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel- Advocate for the appellant.

                                Shri Jitendra Singh Parihar- Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for hearing.

Heard on I.A No.22912/2022 which is an application under Section

389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant arising out of judgment dated 24.11.2022 delivered in S.T.No.28/2023 by the First Sessions Judge, Dindori, District Dindori.

The appellant has been tried and convicted for the offences under Sections 420 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, 467 r/w section 120(B), 468 r/w section 120(B) and section 471 r/w section 120(B) of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- under section 420 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 467 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, sentenced to suffer R.I. for three

years and fine of Rs.3000/- under section 468 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- under section 471 r/w section 120(B) of IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution case, complainant-Mahesh Singh lodged a written complaint at Police Station-Bajag stating that after the death of his father-Karrasingh Paraste on 17.01.2020, appellant-Yogendra Singh with the help of other accused hatched a conspiracy and prepared a Kisan Credit Card Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT KEWAT Signing time: 5/12/2023 10:12:28 AM

by using the forged papers and photographs of his father and obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and misappropriated the whole amount.

In addition to the grounds mentioned in the application for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant drawn attention of this Court towards the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. Mahesh (PW-2) has stated in para-2 of his evidence that appellant told him that he has been defrauded so he should report and appellant would provide him documentary evidence. Ramwati (PW-1) also stated on same line. Therefore, the appellant is not guilty for dishonest intention, fraud or forgery.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The intention of cheating was not established, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable. Final disposal of the appeal would take considerable time. The appellant was in judicial custody for 2 months and 17 days during trial and from the date of judgment i.e. 24.11.2022 till date. Hence, prayer has been made to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and release him on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and judgment of the trial Court.

Recently, Honourable the Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another decided in Criminal Appeal Nos.1331-1332 of 2023 order dated 2.5.2023 held that in order to suspend the substantive order of sentence under section 389 of the Criminal Procedure

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT KEWAT Signing time: 5/12/2023 10:12:28 AM

Code, there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The courts must endeavour to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. It was further held that the appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of section 389 of Cr.P.C. and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution.

The record of the trial Court clearly reveals that prosecution fairly proved that the appellant was Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch- Gorakhpur at the relevant point of time. He has given pre-sanction inspection report Q8 and post sanction inspection report Q10 verifying the Kisan Credit Card loan in favour of deceased Kirra Singh. The handwriting expert report Exhibit P/35 found handwriting of the appellant on above mentioned documents.

The inconsistencies and lacunas pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant has been dealt with by the Trial Court. Considering those lacunas and inconsistencies, in totality, this court does not prima facie find that the conviction of the appellant would not be sustainable. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, this court is not inclined to suspend the

remaining jail sentence of the appellant.

Accordingly, I.A No.22912/2022 is rejected. Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT KEWAT Signing time: 5/12/2023 10:12:28 AM

rk.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT KEWAT Signing time: 5/12/2023 10:12:28 AM