IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 11257 of 2022 (SUNIL KUMAR GODRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated :10-05-2023 Shri Manish Datt- Senior Advocate with Himanshu Soni for the appellant.

Shri Jitendra Singh Parihar- Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for hearing.

Heard on I.A No.22939/2022 which is an application under Section

389(1) of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant arising out of judgment dated 24.11.2022 delivered in S.T.No.28/2023 by the First Sessions Judge, Dindori, District Dindori.

The appellant has been tried and convicted for the offences under Sections 420 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, 467 r/w section 120(B), 468 r/w section 120(B) and section 471 r/w section 120(B) of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- under section 420 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.5000/- under section 467 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.3000/- under section 468 r/w section 120(B) of IPC, and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2000/- under section 471 r/w section 120(B) of IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution case, complainant-Mahesh Singh lodged a written complaint at Police Station-Bajag stating that after the death of his father-Karrasingh Paraste on 17.01.2020, appellant-Sunil Kumar Godra with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT help of accused Yogendra Singh hatched a conspiracy and prepared a Kisan Credit Card by using the forged papers and photographs of his father and obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- and misappropriated the whole amount.

In addition to the grounds mentioned in the application for suspension of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant drawn attention of this Court towards the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution/State that stated against the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove involvement of appellant in the alleged offences. The appellant was working as cashier of the Bank on direction of the Branch Officer. The prosecution has failed to prove his participation or role in the alleged offence, therefore, sentence and conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. Final disposal of the appeal would take considerable time. The appellant was in judicial custody for 2 months and 17 days during trial and from the date of judgment i.e. 24.11.2022 till date. Hence, prayer has been made to suspend the jail sentence of the appellant and release him on bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and judgment of the trial Court.

Recently, Honourable the Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another decided in Criminal Appeal Nos.1331-1332 of 2023 order dated 2.5.2023 held that in order to suspend the substantive order of sentence under section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The courts must endeavour to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. It was further held that the appellate court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of section 389 of Cr.P.C. and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution.

The record of the trial Court reveals that appellant was working as cashie