Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mewaram Singh Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRA No. 12445 of 2023
(MEWARAM SINGH KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 26-02-2024
Shri Ashish Singh Jadoun, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Awasthi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Hemant Singh Rana, learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant.
Heard on the question of admission.
Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.21197/2023, first application under Section 389(1)
Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellant- Mewaram seeking suspension of
sentence and grant of bail.
Appellant stood convicted under Section 419/120-B of IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 420/120-
B of IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs. 500/- and under Section 467/120-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation vide
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2023 passed by
Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) Act, District Gwalior (M.P.) in
Special Case No-300003/2016.
Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment
passed by learned trial Court is based on assumption, conjectures and
surmises. Learned counsel contends that Mewaram stands convicted merely for
the reason that his thumb impression was found on vasiyatnama (Will) (Exhibit
P-17), but there is no allegation that he has forged thumb impression of
executant Bharat Singh. Krishna Bai (PW-3) w/o of Bharosi and Bisna Bai
(PW-8) did not support the prosecution. Learned trial Court committed error in
relying on the evidence of Handwriting Expert. Learned counsel for the
appellant referring to Para Nos.21 and 22 of the judgment submits that there are
material inconsistencies with regard to admitted thumb impression of deceased
Bharosi taken from his KCC bank account. The learned Trial Court has
committed an error in convicting and sentencing the present appellant without
ap p rec iating the prosecution evidence properly. There are material
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Fine amount has
already been deposited by the appellant. Appellant has already undergone jail
custody for two year four months and 25 days. There is no likelihood of early
hearing of the appeal in the near future. Both the parties have amicably settled
the dispute, accordingly application for compromise is filed before the
Appellate Court. On these premised submissions, learned counsel prays that the
execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant may be suspended and he
may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the instant appeal.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent State opposes the application
and prays for its rejection.
Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, but without commenting
upon rival contentions touching merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
application deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly directed that execution of
remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended during pendency of
this appeal and he shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent
surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for compliance with
following conditions:-
(1). The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine (if not deposited)
forthwith;
(2). He shall appear before the Trial Court on 08.04.2024 and on such
further dates as may be directed by the Trial Court;
(3). The appellant shall ensure hearing of the appeal on the date fixed for
such hearing and shall also ensure proper legal representation on his/her/their
behalf, on the date notified for hearing.
In case of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, this order
granting suspension of sentence shall become ineffective.
The Trial Court shall be authorized to grant exemption from attendance
to the appellant on any date, on sufficient cause being shown [Chapter XIII
Rule 42 Sub-Rule 2 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008].
Where the appellant does not appear on the date of his appearance
before the Trial Court and no sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown, the
Trial Court shall be authorized to issue non-bailable/bailable warrants to secure
his attendance under intimation to the Registry of High Court. The Trial Court
shall also proceed under Section 446 of CrPC against such appellant and his
surety without any reference to this Court and without any impediment of the
order granting bail. [Chapter XIII Rule 42 Sub-Rule 3 of M.P. High Court
Rules, 2008].
On arrest/surrender in compliance with the warrant, the appellant shall be
forwarded in custody to undergo sentence of imprisonment under intimation to
the Registry of this Court.
Accordingly, I.A. No.21197/2023 stands allowed and disposed of.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Vijay
