Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anandsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 April, 2017
Cr. A. No.1171 of 2015
Cr. A. No.1184 of 2015
Cr. A. No.1419 of 2015
13/04/2017
Shri Pankaj Kumar Soni, learned Counsel for the
appellant--Anandsingh S/o Mohansingh Rajput (in Cr.
A. No.1171 of 2015).
Shri Gaurav Laad, learned Counsel for the
appellant--Raees Khan S/o Jaleel Khan (in Cr. A.
No.1184 of 2015).
Shri Palash Choudhary, learned Counsel for the
appellant--Pappu @ Pradip S/o Babulal Mewada (in
Cr. A. No.1419 of 2015).
Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for
the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A. No.9190/2016, 2nd/repeat application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant
--Anandsingh (in Cr. A. 1171/2015), I.A. No. 5494/2016, 2nd/repeat application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Raees Khan (in Cr. A. 1184/2015) and I.A. No.5571/2016 2nd/repeat application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant
--Pappu @ Pradip (in Cr. A. 1419/2015).
Their first applications were dismissed on merit by order dated 15.12.2015 by passing a detailed order which reads as under: "Heard on I.A. No.6537/2015, I.A. No.6592/2015, and I.A. No.9388/2015, applications under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence of appellants - Anandsingh Rajput, Raees Khan and Pappu @ Pradip Mewada respectively.
Appellants - Anandsingh Rajput and Raees Khan stand convicted under Sections 420/34 (three counts) and sentenced to undergo 5 years' RI with fine of Rs.5,00000, with default clause. Appellant - Pappu @ Pradip Mewada stands convicted under Section 420/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 5 years RI and fine of Rs.5,00000, with default clause. Besides above, appellants have also been convicted under Sections 467/34 and 468/34 (three counts each) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years' RI and find of Rs.5,00000 and 5 years' RI and fine of Rs.5,00000, with default clause respectively.
Learned counsel for the appellant - Anandsingh Rajput submitted that Rajendra Singh (PW3) has not identified the appellant Anandsingh. Thus, the identity of the appellant Anandsingh is doubtful. There is no evidence that appellant Anandsingh has received the money from complainant and made forged appointment letter. Appellant Anandsingh has a good case in appeal. He has already suffered the jail sentence for more than a year. There is no likelihood that the appeal be heard in near future. In such circumstances the jail sentence of the appellant Anandsingh be suspended till pendency of his appeal and he be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant - Raees Khan submitted that he is a driver and no incriminating article has been seized from his possession. He has not received any amount from the complainant. There is no evidence on record that he has cheated the complainant or made a forged appointment letter. Thus, he has a good case in appeal and he has already suffered the jail sentence for more than a year; whereas his appeal will take time for final hearing. In such circumstances the jail sentence of the appellant Raees Khan be suspended till pendency of his appeal and he be released on bail.
Learned Counsel for the appellant - Pappu @ Pradip Mewada submits that the appellant is a cousin brother of the complainant Rakesh. He has not involved in the crime. Actually he has also been cheated by the other coaccused persons. Learned Trial Court in para 29 of the judgment held that prosecution has not examined handwriting expert and the report of handwriting expert is produced in which no definite opinion is given about the handwriting of the accused persons. Therefore, it is no proved that the appellant has made a forged document. Therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for cheating and forgery. It is also submitted that the appellant has already suffered 14 months' jail sentence. There is no likelihood that the appeal be heard in near future. In such circumstances the jail sentence of the appellant Pappu @ Pradip Mewada be suspended till pendency of his appeal and he be released on bail.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the Respondent/State vehemently opposes the prayer. She has drawn my attention towards para 30 and 31 of the judgment in which there is a finding that the appellants have used the forged appointment letter as genuine for cheating purpose and the judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The appellants have cheated unemployed 3 persons. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the applications.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. I am of the view that the appellants have failed to make out a case for granting suspension of jail sentence. Thus, the applications [I.A.No.6537/2015; I.A.No.6582/2015 and I.A.No.9388/2015] are hereby dismissed."
On due consideration of the aforesaid, there is not change in the circumstances nor any case for suspension of jail sentence, as prayed is made out.
Accordingly, I.A. No.9190/2016, I.A. No. 5494/2016 and I.A. No.5571/2016 are hereby dismissed.
As prayed by Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer, two weeks time is granted to file reply to I.A. No.221/2017.
I.A. No.3390 of 2016, application for compromise, will be considered at the time final hearing of the appeal.
(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge pp/