Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxman Dwivedi @ Banu on 23 April, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18580
1 MCRC-17091-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17091 of 2018
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
LAXMAN DWIVEDI @ BANU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Shweta Yadav - Dy. Advocate General for State.
ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 378(iii) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave
to appeal, a request has been made to quash the judgment of acquittal passed
in favour of respondents on 30.01.2018 by First Additional Sessions, Judge,
Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No.42/2012. Under it, respondents were
acquitted of the charges of Sections 120B, 467/120B, 468/120B and
420/120B of IPC. From the impugned judgment, it is revealed that Santosh
Yadav and Pancham Namdev were convicted and sentenced by the trial
Court while another person arrayed as accused before the trial Court namely,
Jitendra S/o Govind Singh Bundela was absconding till the decision of the
case.
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this petition are that convict
Santosh Yadav introduced convict Pancham Namdev to complainant
Durgesh Khare as Nandkishore Ahirwar, who expressed his willingness to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18580
2 MCRC-17091-2018
sell his property to complainant; a Power of Attorney was executed, which
was signed by both the convicts i.e. Santosh and Pancham. It is stated that
respondents Laxman Dwivedi @ Banu and Jai Kumar Khare signed that deed
of Power of Attorney dated 26.02.2010 as witnesses and had also identified
the executant; by executing this forged deed respondents and convicts
induced the complainant Durgesh Khare to pay them Rs.4,06,000/- and this
amount was received by convict Santosh Yadav who later executed a
registered sale deed in favour of complainant Durgesh Kumar Khare. A
written complaint was made upon which FIR at Crime No.490/2011 was
registered in Police Station Kotwali, Chhatarpur. After completing the
investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the trial was held in which
respondents were acquitted of all the charges.
3. State has challenged the said order of acquittal on the ground that
it is bad in law and procedure, and contrary to the material available on
record; it is submitted that the evidence was not properly appreciated and
there was sufficient evidence available against respondents that they were
involved in conspiracy with convicted persons. It is submitted that in the
absence of material contradictions, omissions or improvements in the
statements of prosecution witnesses, their testimony ought to have been
relied upon but the trial Court wrongly acquitted the respondents. A request
was, therefore, made to grant leave to appeal.
4. Counsel for State has been heard at length and the scanned record
of the trial Court has been perused.
5. The FIR (Exhibit-P/12) registered in this case is based upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18580
3 MCRC-17091-2018
written complaint Exhibit-P/2 given by complainant Durgesh Khare. In this
FIR, the name of both the respondents is mentioned and the allegations made
against them are that the Power of Attorney dated 26.02.2010, executed by
Pancham Namdev under fake identity of Nandkishore Ahirwar, was signed
by respondents Jai Kumar Khare as well as Laxman Dwivedi. It is further
claimed that respondents Jai Kumar Khare and Laxman Dwivedi were
involved in a criminal conspiracy with convicted persons. In this backdrop of
facts, the statements of complainant Durgesh Khare (PW-2) have been
examined.
6. In para No.9 of his cross-examination, Durgesh (PW-2) has
admitted that he is not acquainted with respondent Jai Kumar Khare and in
para No.13, he merely admits the fact that his acquaintance with Laxman
Dwivedi is limited to the extent that Laxman Dwivedi was the employee of
Digvijay Tripathi and beyond it, the witness knows nothing about Laxman
Dwivedi. If we analyze his statements then it would come out that he has not
spoken a word against any of these two respondents in relation to execution
of questioned Power of Attorney. He has even failed to state that these
respondents were present at the time of execution of the deed or had signed
it. In the absence of specific allegation against the respondents about their
presence or putting their signatures on the deed, it is not possible to assume
that respondents were involved at any stage in the execution of questioned
Power of Attorney.
7. The prosecution could have proved the fact that respondents were
the signatory of questioned deed by getting their signatures compared with
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18580
4 MCRC-17091-2018
the signatures present on the deed. Although a draft was sent to handwriting
expert by Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur, however, there is no
evidence to suggest that signatures obtained from the respondents had
matched with the signatures available on questioned Power of Attorney deed
marked as Exhibit-P/10. Consequently, the prosecution case is not
established even on the strength of any scientific evidence as without the
report of handwriting expert and his testimony, no inference can possibly be
drawn that the respondents had put their signatures on this deed of Power of
Attorney (Exhibit-P/10) as witnesses.
8. It is interesting to observe that the Power of Attorney was
executed between Nandkishore and Santosh Yadav and complainant Durgesh
Khare was not a party in any capacity to this deed. He claims that he had paid
money to convict Santosh Yadav but prosecution has failed to prove
payment of any part of this money to respondents. The alleged sale deed
executed in favour of complainant, regarding which the payment of
consideration price was allegedly made, has not been filed in evidence.
9. It is very pertinent to mention here that the deed of Power of
Attorney marked in evidence as Exhibit-P/10 does not reveal that persons
signing it as Jai Kumar Khare and Laxman Dwivedi were identifying any of
the parties to this deed. These two witnesses were only putting their
signature on the deed to certify that it was executed in their presence and
there is complete silence of the fact that they were also certifying the identity
of parties. Therefore, it cannot be held that witnesses to the deed were in any
manner responsible for the fake identity of Pancham as Nandkishore
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18580
5 MCRC-17091-2018
Ahirwar.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the complete absence of
evidence, regarding the involvement of respondents in the execution of
questioned Power of Attorney or certifying the fake identity of executant, it
can be observed that it was a case of no evidence and the trial Court rightly
acquitted the respondents on all the counts of charge.
11. As no perversity in the judgment passed by the trial Court has
been unfolded here, we do not find any ground to allow the leave to appeal
to the State.
12. Accordingly, this petition and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine
and disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
NP
