Satari Laguri and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Satari Laguri and anr. vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Nov 30, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/523196

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/523196
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: Amareshwar Sahay and; R.K. Merathia, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 30, 2006
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 [C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 173(1) Proviso; [D. Biswas, Amitava Roy & I.A.Ansari, JJ] Appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation Maintainability - Held, If the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satari Laguri and anr.

Respondent

State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Legal References

Reported In: [2007(2)JCR103(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. .....due to quarrel and there was no intention to kill and therefore appellants cannot be held for the offence under section 302/34, ipc.6. on close scrutiny of the evidences brought on the record, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the factum and manner of occurrence so far as deceased is concerned.7. the question, however, is whether the appellants had intention to kill the deceased?8. it appears from the medical evidence that the cause of death was single sharp cutting injury on the head of the deceased. two small abrasions were also found near left knee and left shoulder. the doctor opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death was shock produced by injuries inflicted on head, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.9. it appears that there was a single blow by 'kudal on the head of the deceased. only two minor abrasions were found on knee and shoulder. the occurrence took place after quarrel between the ladies over a basket. nothing has been brought on the record by the prosecution to show that the appellants were having the intention to kill the deceased. it might be that they had knowledge that such injury on head is likely to cause death.10. in view of the discussions made above, we hold that the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 of the indian penal code cannot be sustained. accordingly, their conviction and sentence under section 302/34 of the indian penal code are set aside. however, on the basis of the evidence on record, we hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against the appellants for the offence under section 304, part-ii/34 of the indian penal code. accordingly, the appellants are convicted thereunder.11. so far as the sentence is concerned, since the appellants have remained in custody for more than nine years, as stated by mr. a.s. dayal, in our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the appellants are sentenced to the period.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.6.1997 and 3.6.1997 respectively passed by Shri Prashant Kumar. 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 1991, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, IPC and sentencing them to RI for life.

2. The prosecution case in short is as follows:

Risal Laguri (PW 2) lodged a fardbeyan on 17.2.1989 that there was a quarrel between his mother and the mother of appellant No. 1 over a basket for collecting cow dung. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 came to the house of informant and abused his mother. He gave a fist blow to his sister-in-law. His father and uncle tried to rescue her, whereupon appellant No. 1 caught his father, who was rescued by his brother. Thereafter appellant No. 1 brought a 'danda' and started assaulting informant's father and his uncle. In the meantime, his brother, appellant No. 2, came with spade and caused injury on his father's head. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 took spade from him and assaulted informant's uncle also and fled away. His father fell on the ground and ultimately died and his uncle was grievously injured.

3. Appellants were charged under Sections 302/34 and 307/34, IPC to which they pleaded not guilty. They were acquitted under Section 307/34, IPC but were convicted under Section 302/34, IPC.

4. Out of six prosecution witnesses, five are eye-witnesses PWs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. PW 5 is the doctor, who conducted postmortem on deceased-Birsa Laguri.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the occurrence took place due to quarrel and there was no intention to kill and therefore appellants cannot be held for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC.

6. On close scrutiny of the evidences brought on the record, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the factum and manner of occurrence so far as deceased is concerned.

7. The question, however, is whether the appellants had intention to kill the deceased?

8. It appears from the medical evidence that the cause of death was single sharp cutting injury on the head of the deceased. Two small abrasions were also found near left knee and left shoulder. The doctor opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon and the cause of death was shock produced by injuries inflicted on head, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

9. It appears that there was a single blow by 'Kudal on the head of the deceased. Only two minor abrasions were found on knee and shoulder. The occurrence took place after quarrel between the ladies over a basket. Nothing has been brought on the record by the prosecution to show that the appellants were having the intention to kill the deceased. It might be that they had knowledge that such injury on head is likely to cause death.

10. In view of the discussions made above, we hold that the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Accordingly, their conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. However, on the basis of the evidence on record, we hold that the prosecution has been able to establish the case against the appellants for the offence under Section 304, Part-II/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellants are convicted thereunder.

11. So far as the sentence is concerned, since the appellants have remained in custody for more than nine years, as stated by Mr. A.S. Dayal, in our opinion, the ends of justice will be met if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them in custody. The appellants, who are in custody, are set at liberty. if not wanted in any other case.

12. With this alteration in the and modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2006 Same Parties Satari Laguri and anr. vs State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Amareshwar Sahay and; R.K. Merathia, JJ.

Criminal