Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sohanlal Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 16126 of 2023
(SOHANLAL RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
CRA/00821/2024, CRA/00890/2024, CRA/00977/2024, CRA/03057/2024
Dated : 21-05-2024
Shri Ashish Sinha, counsel for the appellants in Cr.A.No.16126/2023.
Shri Sampoorna Tiwari, counsel for appellant in Cr.A.No.977/2024.
Shri Ashish Vishwakarma, counsel for appellant in Cr.A.No.890/2024.
Shri Hussain Ali Saifi, counsel for appellant in Cr.A.No.821/2024.
Shri Harish Chandra Singh, counsel for appellant No.3057/2024.
Shri Christopher Anthony, P.L. for respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.30468/2023, I.A.No.1033/2024,
I.A.No.3435/2024, I.A.No.1364/2024 and I.A.No.5912/2024, the
applications under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence
and grant of bail to the appellants in their respective appeals, pending the
appeal.
2. Appellants Sohanlal Rajak, Abid Khan, Ramkishore, Sujeet
Kumar and Paramjeet have been convicted for commission of offence
under Section 420 r/w section 120-B, 467 r/w 120-B, 468 r/w section
120-B and 471 r/w section 120-B of IPC and each of them have been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03 years, 05 years, 03 years and 02 years and
to pay fine of Rs.3000/-,5000/-, 3000/- and 2000 with default stipulations
respectively vide judgment dated 30.11.2023 passed in S.T No.- 105/2022
(State of M.P. vs. Manish Gupta and others ) by IXth Additional Sessions
Judge, Katni District Katni (M.P.).
3. Learned counsel for the respective appellants have submitted
that appellants have been erroneously convicted by learned trial Court as it
has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available
on record. It is submitted that in the case a written complaint was filed by
complainant Omprakash Khanwani. The actual owner of the land by whom
power of attorney is alleged not to have been executed in favour of accused
Abid Khan, was never examined before the trial court, therefore, the
findings recorded by learned trial court convicting the appellants for the
aforesaid offences are erroneous perverse. Learned counsel for the
appellants have referred the evidence of witnesses, namely, Pankaj Shukla
(P.W.9) and Omprakash Khanwani (P.W.1) and have submitted that there is
no evidence whether power of attorney was executed by actual owner or
not. Learned counsel for the appellant Abid Khan has contended that his
under section 313 Cr.P.C was not properly conducted and questions as per
evidence were not put to him in examination of accused under section 313
Cr.P.C. It is submitted that appellant Abid Khan has already undergone
incarceration for more than 02 years while other appellants have undergone
incarceration for six months and more. It is also submitted that appellants
have fair chances to succeed in appeal. There is no possibility of coming of
this appeal for hearing in near future. Therefore, it is prayed that custodial
jail sentence of the appellants may be suspended and they may be released
on bail, pending the appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellants.
5. I have gone through the evidence of witnesses Pankaj Shukla
(P.W.9) and Omprakash (P.W.1) and evidence of other witnesses. In this
case, it is undisputed that the original owner of the land Virendra Kumar
Munikesh has not been examined as prosecution witness. On perusal of the
examination of accused Abid Khan recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C,
it is apparent that only 08 pages of his examination under section 313
Cr.PC filled with answers given by him while page No.09 to 35 are
unfilled although pages bears the signatures of accused/appellant Abid
Khan and Presiding Officer both. The act of not putting the circumstances
as appeared in evidence against him and not filling the answers in sheets of
questions is a serious matter. Therefore, having taken into consideration
the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and material on record including
the fact that there is no possibility of hearing of these appeals in near
f u t u r e , I.A.No.30468/2023, I.A.No.1033/2024, I.A.No.3435/2024,
I.A.No.1364/2024 and I.A.No.5912/2024, are allowed.
6. The execution of jail sentence of appellants Sohanlal Rajak,
Abid Khan, Ram Kishore Rajak, Sujet Kumar and Paramjeet Singh is
hereby suspended subject to depositing the entire fine amount, if not
already deposited. It is directed that the appellants be released on bail on
their furnishing a personal bond to a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court with a further direction to appear before the
trial Court on 22.10.2024 and also on such other dates, as may be fixed by
that Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
List after ensuing summer vacation.
Certified copy as per rules.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
MKL
