Aalam Ansari Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Aalam Ansari vs The State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 19, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972451

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/972451
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Jun 19, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aalam Ansari

Respondent

The State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

.....june,2013 perd.n.patel,j.1. this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original accused no. 2 of s.t. no. 619 of 2003) as he has been mainlypunishedundersection304partiiofi.p.c.for10yearsr.i. andhehasalsobeenpunishedundervariousothersectionsofi.p.c. andallthesentenceshavebeenorderedtoberunconcurrentlyby thelearnedtrialcourt.thiscourthasadmittedthiscriminalappeal byorderdated14th may,2013andtherecordsandproceedingsof sessionstrialno.619of2003wascalledforfromthetrialcourtso astoappreciatetheargumentsforsuspensionofsentence.2. this court has received the records and proceedings of the sessions trial no. 619 of 2003. we have perused the same and heard the counsel for both the sides at length for suspension of sentenceundersection389cr.p.c.3. lookingtotheevidencesonrecord,thereisaprimafaciecase againstthisappellant.asthecriminalappealispending,wearenot muchanalysingtheevidencesonrecord,but,sufficeittosaythat thecaseofprosecutionisbaseduponseveralinjuredeyewitnesses, whoarep.ws3,5,6,7and8.alltheseareinjuredeyewitnesses, whohavebeenexaminedbydr.shambhuprasadsinghp.w9and dr.chandrabhushansahayp.w11.lookingtotheevidencesof thesewitnessesaswellastheevidenceofp.w1,theyhaveclearly narratedtheroleplayedbythisappellantincausinginjuriesupon the body of the deceased. their evidence is constituting a prima faciecaseagainstthisappellant.thedepositionoftheeyewitness p.w1andinjuredeyewitnessesisgettingenoughcorroborationby themedicalevidencegivenbyp.w2dr.ajitkumarchoudhary,who carriedoutthepostmortemofthebodyofthedeceased.p.ws9and 11haveprovedtheinjuriesoftheinjuredeyewitnesses.inthelight oftheseevidencesonrecord,thereisaprimafaciecaseagainstthis appellant.lookingtotheprimafaciecase,gravityoftheoffence, quantumofpunishmentandthemannerinwhichthisappellantis involvedintheoffenceasallegedbytheprosecution,wearenot inclinedtosuspendthesentenceawardedtohimbythetrialcourt ins.t.no.619of2003.4. therefore,thereisnosubstanceintheprayerforsuspensionof.....

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI CriminalAppeal(DB)No.85of2013 AalamAnsari ... Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand ... ... ... Respondent CORAM: HONBLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HONBLEMR.JUSTICESHREECHANDRASHEKHAR FortheAppellant :Mr.P.R.Khatri,Advocate FortheState :Mr.RaviPrakash,A.P.P. th 05/Dated:19 June,2013 PerD.N.Patel,J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original accused no. 2 of S.T. No. 619 of 2003) as he has been mainlypunishedunderSection304PartIIofI.P.C.for10yearsR.I. andhehasalsobeenpunishedundervariousothersectionsofI.P.C. andallthesentenceshavebeenorderedtoberunconcurrentlyby thelearnedtrialcourt.ThisCourthasadmittedthiscriminalappeal byorderdated14th May,2013andtherecordsandproceedingsof SessionsTrialNo.619of2003wascalledforfromthetrialcourtso astoappreciatetheargumentsforsuspensionofsentence.

2. This Court has received the records and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 619 of 2003. We have perused the same and heard the counsel for both the sides at length for suspension of sentenceunderSection389Cr.P.C.

3. Lookingtotheevidencesonrecord,thereisaprimafaciecase againstthisappellant.Asthecriminalappealispending,wearenot muchanalysingtheevidencesonrecord,but,sufficeittosaythat thecaseofprosecutionisbaseduponseveralinjuredeyewitnesses, whoareP.Ws3,5,6,7and8.Alltheseareinjuredeyewitnesses, whohavebeenexaminedbyDr.ShambhuPrasadSinghP.W9and Dr.ChandraBhushanSahayP.W11.Lookingtotheevidencesof thesewitnessesaswellastheevidenceofP.W1,theyhaveclearly narratedtheroleplayedbythisappellantincausinginjuriesupon the body of the deceased. Their evidence is constituting a prima faciecaseagainstthisappellant.Thedepositionoftheeyewitness P.W1andinjuredeyewitnessesisgettingenoughcorroborationby themedicalevidencegivenbyP.W2Dr.AjitKumarChoudhary,who carriedoutthepostmortemofthebodyofthedeceased.P.Ws9and 11haveprovedtheinjuriesoftheinjuredeyewitnesses.Inthelight oftheseevidencesonrecord,thereisaprimafaciecaseagainstthis appellant.Lookingtotheprimafaciecase,gravityoftheoffence, quantumofpunishmentandthemannerinwhichthisappellantis involvedintheoffenceasallegedbytheprosecution,wearenot inclinedtosuspendthesentenceawardedtohimbythetrialcourt inS.T.No.619of2003.

4. Therefore,thereisnosubstanceintheprayerforsuspensionof sentenceandthesameisherebyrejected. (D.N.Patel,J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Manish/RaviShekhar

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2013 Same Parties Aalam Ansari vs The State of Jharkhand Same Subject Education