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.

Bablu Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand

Bablu Pandey vs State of Jharkhand

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 20, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/972776

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bablu Pandey

Respondent

State of Jharkhand

Excerpt

.....also prayer for suspension of sentencecanvassedbylearnedcounselfortheapplicantwasrejectedbythis court vide order dated 8th april, 2009 and there is no change in the circumstance,thereafterand,hence,thisinterlocutoryapplicationmaynotbe entertainedbythiscourt.3. wehaveperusedtherecordsandproceedingsofsessionstrialno.285of 2006.lookingtotheevidencesonrecordespeciallylookingtotheevidenceof p.w.3,p.w.4andp.w.5,thereisprimafaciecaseagainstthisapplicant.p.w.isan informant.lookingtotheevidencesoftheseeyewitnesses,itappearsthatthe presentapplicantwashavingfirearmandhehascausedfirearminjuryupon thedeceased.lookingtothemedicalevidencegivenbyp.w.6(dr.tulsimahto), thereisenoughcorroborationtothedepositionsoftheeyewitnesses.these depositions of the witnesses is constituting a prima facie case against this applicant.moreoverpreviouslyalso,prayerforsuspensionofsentencewasnot 2 grantedbythiscourtvideorderdated8thapril,2009andthereisnochangein thecircumstance,thereafter.thus,lookingtotheprimafaciecaseagainstthe presentapplicantandlookingtothegravityofoffence,quantumofpunishment andthemannerinwhichthepresentapplicantisinvolvedintheoffenceof murderofdeceased,wearenotinclinedtosuspendthesentenceawardedto himbythetrialcourt.thereisnosubstanceintheinterlocutoryapplication and,hence,thesameis,hereby,dismissed. (d.n.patel,j.) (r.r.prasad,j.) ajay/

Full Judgment

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI I.A.No.1631of2012 In Cr.Appeal(DB)No.271of2009 BabluPandey Appellant Versus TheStateofJharkhand Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEMR.JUSTICED.N.PATEL HON'BLEMR.JUSTICER.R.PRASAD FortheAppellant : None FortheState : A.P.P. 04/Dated:20 th June,2013 PerD.N.Patel,J.:

1. Whenthematteriscalledout,learnedcounselfortheapplicantisabsent. Previouslyalsoon11thApril,2013,thematterwasadjournedattherequestof learnedcounselfortheapplicant.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the StateA.P.P., at length. It is submittedbylearnedA.P.P.thatthecaseoftheprosecutionisbaseduponmore thanoneeyewitnesseswhoareP.W.3,P.W.4andP.W.5.Itisallegedthatthis applicanthascausedfirearminjuryuponthedeceased,whoexpiredbecauseof firearm injury.Moreover,medical evidence given by P.W6(Dr.TulsiMahto) who has carried out postmortem of the body of the deceased, is also corroborative to the depositions given by the eye witnesses. Moreover, it is submitted by learned A.P.P. that previously also prayer for suspension of sentencecanvassedbylearnedcounselfortheapplicantwasrejectedbythis Court vide order dated 8th April, 2009 and there is no change in the circumstance,thereafterand,hence,thisinterlocutoryapplicationmaynotbe entertainedbythisCourt.

3. WehaveperusedtherecordsandproceedingsofSessionsTrialNo.285of 2006.Lookingtotheevidencesonrecordespeciallylookingtotheevidenceof P.W.3,P.W.4andP.W.5,thereisprimafaciecaseagainstthisapplicant.P.W.isan informant.Lookingtotheevidencesoftheseeyewitnesses,itappearsthatthe presentapplicantwashavingfirearmandhehascausedfirearminjuryupon thedeceased.LookingtothemedicalevidencegivenbyP.W.6(Dr.TulsiMahto), thereisenoughcorroborationtothedepositionsoftheeyewitnesses.These depositions of the witnesses is constituting a prima facie case against this applicant.Moreoverpreviouslyalso,prayerforsuspensionofsentencewasnot 2 grantedbythisCourtvideorderdated8thApril,2009andthereisnochangein thecircumstance,thereafter.Thus,lookingtotheprimafaciecaseagainstthe presentapplicantandlookingtothegravityofoffence,quantumofpunishment andthemannerinwhichthepresentapplicantisinvolvedintheoffenceof murderofdeceased,wearenotinclinedtosuspendthesentenceawardedto himbythetrialcourt.Thereisnosubstanceintheinterlocutoryapplication and,hence,thesameis,hereby,dismissed. (D.N.Patel,J.) (R.R.Prasad,J.) Ajay/

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial