Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Manoj Kumar Alias Babloo Vs. State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Alias Babloo vs State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 10, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/971850

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Jharkhand High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj Kumar Alias Babloo

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

.....2013 oral order: per d.n.patel,j:1. the present appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 6th december, 2012.2. records and proceedings of sessions trial no. 556/2011 was called for from the trial court so as to appreciate the arguments for suspension of sentence. records and proceedings of sessions trial no. 556/2011 has been received by this court.3. the present appellant is convicted for the offence under section 364-a of the indian penal code for kidnapping dr. lalit jain and keeping him in detention. he is punished for life imprisonment and fine of rs. 5,000/-.4. having heard the counsel for both the sides and looking to the records and proceedings of sessions trial there is a prima facie case against this appellant-accused, who is original accused no.3 in sessions trial no. 556 of 2011. as the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record but suffice it to say that looking to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, who are p.w.1, p.w.2, p.w.3 and p.w. 6 there is a prima facie case against this appellant-accused because they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant. moreover, deposition of these witnesses is getting enough corroboration with the deposition of p.w. 4, p.w. 5 and p.w.2 (dr. lalit jain), who was kidnapped. as the criminal appeal is pending, we are not going into much detail but depositions of these witnesses constitute a prima facie case against this appellant hence looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which this appellant is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court to this appellant. thus, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected. [d.n.patel,j.] [d.n.upadhyay,j.] p.k.s.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.)No.1035 of 2012 Manoj Kumar @ Babloo. ... ... ... ... ...Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. ... ... ... ... ...Respondent -------------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY -------------- For the Appellant: Mr. Raj Mangal Singh, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. -------------- 05/ Dated 10th January, 2013 Oral order: Per D.N.Patel,J:

1. The present appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 6th December, 2012.

2. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 556/2011 was called for from the Trial Court so as to appreciate the arguments for suspension of sentence. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 556/2011 has been received by this Court.

3. The present appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping Dr. Lalit Jain and keeping him in detention. He is punished for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. Having heard the Counsel for both the sides and looking to the records and proceedings of Sessions Trial there is a prima facie case against this appellant-accused, who is original accused no.3 in Sessions Trial No. 556 of 2011. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record but suffice it to say that looking to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, who are P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W. 6 there is a prima facie case against this appellant-accused because they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant. Moreover, deposition of these witnesses is getting enough corroboration with the deposition of P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W.2 (Dr. Lalit Jain), who was kidnapped. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not going into much detail but depositions of these witnesses constitute a prima facie case against this appellant hence looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which this appellant is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to this appellant. Thus, prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby rejected. [D.N.Patel,J.] [D.N.Upadhyay,J.] P.K.S.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial