Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shatrudhan & Anr. on 27 November, 2025
Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh
Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61266
1 CRA-2907-2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2907 of 2000
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Versus
SHATRUDHAN & ANR.
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Choubey - Govt. Advocate for respondent State.
Shri Pushpesh Pandey - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Vide order dated 7.12.2000 leave to appeal was granted and the case
was admitted.
2. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna in Criminal Case
No. 3224/1983 - State of Madhya Pradesh, through Kotwali Satna v.
Shatrudhan and 2 others in which accused No. 3 Bhola Prasad S/o Shankar
Prasad expired during the pendency of the case before the trial Court, vide
judgment dated 15.9.1994 convicted the accused Shatrudhan and
Shyamsunder for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C and
sentenced as per paragraph 13 of the judgment of the trial Court. On an
appeal by the appellants, klearned III Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in
Criminal Appeal No. 81/1994 vide judgment dated 14.10.1997 reversed the
conviction and acquitted the appellant; against which the appeal has been
filed on the ground that the judgment of the trial Court was well reasoned.
Therefore, there was no occasion for the Appellate Court to grant acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61266
2 CRA-2907-2000
Hence, prayer is made to convict the remaining respondent, viz., Shatrudhan
under Section 420 I.P.C. It is pertinent to mention here that during the
pendency of instant appeal respondent Shyam Sundar has also expired and
vide order dated 2.7.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court name of
Shyam Sundar was ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment
passed by learned Appellate Court.
4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. The allegation against the respondent Shatrudhan is that while
making false statement and cheating the complainant Ram Prasad the suit
property vide sale-deed was falsely executed and sold for a sum of
Rs.11,000/-; whereas in Khasra No. 345 area 56 decimal, the agreement to
sale was for a sum of Rs.500/-. But entire other land which was not to be
sold was included in the sale-deed. Learned Govt. Advocate very fairly
submits that in this case there was no agreement to sale which could have
proved the contents and property to be sold in totality, only there are
statement of Sarpanch and other witnesses before whom orally terms of sale
was considered. When this Court asked the learned Govt. Advocate whether
the Registry was challenged by way of Civil Suit, the learned Govt.
Advocate submits that there is no proof of challenging the same by way of
civil suit.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court accused might have tried to
cheat an illiterate (complainant) who is a simple minded person; however, it
is expected that at the time of execution of sale-deed sub Registrar, who is a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:61266
3 CRA-2907-2000
public officer might have asked about the terms of sale-deed. Learned Govt.
Advocate very fairly submits that the sale-deed was never exhibited by the
complainant party/prosecution. Therefore, when the most crucial document,
i.e., sale-deed was not even exhibited then how the offences could have been
proved is beyond any reasonable doubt. Even otherwise in case of acquittal
by the Appellate Court, on consideration of evidence a presumption goes in
favour of the appellant.
7. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court and Appellant Court,
this Court is of the view that no perversity is seen of the judgment of the
Appellate Court. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
VKT
