Sandeep vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17744 MP

                                     1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                             CRA No. 9303 of 2023
                (SANDEEP AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 25-10-2023
      Shri Pushpendra Dubey - Advocate for the appellants.

      Shri P. Chatterjee - Panel Lawyer for the State.

      Reserved on              : 19.10.2023
      Pronounced on            : 25.10.2023

      Arguments of both the counsel for the parties are heard at length.

      Judgment and record of the Court below perused.
                                   ORDER

Heard on admission.

The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing. Also heard on I.A No.17726/2023, which is first application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellants.

Each of the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B, 465/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and 471/120-B of

IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, 1 year, 3 years, 3 years and 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs. 1,000/-, Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the jail sentence of appellants was suspended by the trial court till 10.08.2023 (as mentioned in the application). Thereafter, this court vide order dated 24.7.2023 has extended the period of bail of appellants from 10.08.2023 to 10.10.2023. Again, this court

vide order dated 10.10.2023 has extended the period of bail of appellants for a further period of 15 days from 10.10.2023 to 25.10.2023. The maximum jail sentence of appellants is of three years and they were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them and also the appeal would take considerable time to conclude. They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the application for suspension of sentence may be considered.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and pray for its rejection.

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

On perusal of record, it is evident that this case is based not only on oral and documentary evidence but also on the opinion of hand writing expert. The evidence produced on record by the prosecution discloses that appellant no.3 Bhola submitted an application for payment of ex-gratia money on account of the death of his wife Nirmala. His specimen as well as natural signatures have tallied with questioned signature, marked as Q5, whereby he received Rs.5,000/- in cash for the purpose of funeral ceremony of his wife.

It is claimed by the prosecution that appellant no.2 Lalit Sona verified the fact of death of wife of appellant no.3 Bhola, namely Nirmala. For this, the report given by him was also examined by the hand writing expert who found the signature of appellant no.2 Lalit Sona on questioned document, marked as Q1, when he compared the signatures thereon with the natural and specimen signatures of appellant no.2 Lalit Sona.

It has been argued on behalf of appellant no.2 Lalit Sona that he was a

Class IV employee and had no authority to issue the report of death. In the light of this plea, it was for the appellant no.2 Lalit Sona to explain why he signed this document whereby the death of Nirmala, wife of appellant no.3 Bhola, was certified.

On the basis of evidence available in the case, this Court finds no reason to suspend the jail sentence of appellant no.2 Lalit Sona and appellant no.3 Bhola against whom it is proved that they acted in connivance to ensure the payment of ex-gratia amount to appellant no.3 Bhola on the ground of death of his wife. It is though claimed that only Rs.5,000/- were received by appellant no.3 Bhola and that too has been repaid by him but small sum or its repayment does not exonerate him from the criminal liability.

The next appellant is Sandeep Jhapate (appellant no.1 herein), who was the Ward Councillor and against whom it is proved that he signed Questioned documents, Q3 and Q4. These two documents relate to funeral panchnama. It is significant to note here that the hand writing expert could find only some similarities between the questioned signatures and the natural as well as specimen signatures of appellant no.1 Sandeep. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not find the questioned signatures completely identical to the specimen or natural signatures of this appellant. It is an established fact that no witness was examined by the prosecution to verify the fact that he saw

appellant Sandeep signing these questioned documents.

Thus, in the absence of direct and credible evidence, the execution of sentence of jail term of appellant Sandeep is suspended till the decision of this appeal.

Accordingly, the application jointly filed by the three appellants is

allowed only partially and that too in reference to appellant no.1 Sandeep Jhapate.

I t is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, the custodial sentence of appellant no.1 Sandeep Jhapate shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail for securing his presence before the trial Court concerned on 22.12.2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard during pendency of this appeal.

Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. stands partially allowed and disposed of.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE

ps

Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2023.10.26 16:00:16 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8