Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Aka Dhirendra Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8087 of 2022
(DHARMENDRA AKA DHIRENDRA KAURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 27-09-2023
Shri Arjun Singh- Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Chandrakanta Pal- Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the Court below is received.
Heard on admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Parties are heard on I.A.No.17355/2022, an application under
Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and
grant of bail to appellant arising out of judgment dated 25.08.2022
delivered in S.T. No.51/2017 by Additional Judge to the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Amarvada, District-Chhindwara.
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 419, 420, 467,
469,& 471 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, 5 years, 10
years, 7 years and 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (three count) with default
stipulations respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that
the there is no report of hand writting expert on record and therefore, it
cannot be said with certainty that appellant had signed any document. It is
not proved that appellant had forged any document. No witness has
identified the appellant. There are contradictions and omissions in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to when and in which month
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 9/27/2023
2:46:00 PM
appellant came for audit. Letter dated 20.02.2017 is a photocopy and
original of the same has not been filed by the prosecution. In absence of any
original, on the basis of photocopy, offence of forgery cannot be proved.
Appellant is in jail since 25.08.2022. In the instant case from evidence on
record offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 469,& 471 of IPC is not
made out as necessary ingredients to constitute the aforesaid offence are
not proved from the evidence in this case. With respect to above
submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgement
in the case of Ashok Kumar Goenka Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in
Cr.A. No. 23 of 2015 dated 27.06.2022 and in the case of Ramreao Vs.
Natthu reported in 2011(4) MPLJ 203 & in the case of J. Yashoda Vs.
K. Shobha Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730. therefore, it is prayed that remaining
jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he be released on bail.
The prayer is opposed by learned panel Lawyer.
I have gone through the documentary as well as oral evidence
adduced by the prosecution. The overall evidence, if read as a whole, then,
it cannot be said that no offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 469,& 471 of
IPC is made out. In the in the instant case, pursuant to the memorandum of
appellant recovery vide Ex. P/9 and P/10 has also been made from the
appellant. Prosecution witnesses have identified the appellant and stated
that the appellant came for audit. Therefore, in view of aforesaid evidence
on record, no case is made out for suspension of sentence.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 17355/2022 is dismissed.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 9/27/2023
2:46:00 PM
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MISHRA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 9/27/2023
2:46:00 PM
