Jharkhand Court July 2004 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Doman Munda and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR2172
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Both the appellants (accused) were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 323/34, IPC for committing murder of Rani @ Sani Mundain, daughter of informant, Dimbu Devi (PW 2). The Trial Court while acquitted both the accused of the alleged charges under Section 323/34, IPC, convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide impugned judgment dated 30th June, 1997, passed by Sri Ravindra Nath Verma, Additional Judicial Commissioner- Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 673 of 1996/G.R. Case No. 257 of 1995. .Before discussion of objections as have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it will be convenient to discuss the case of prosecution and the evidence.2. The case of prosecution, as per fardbeyan of Dimbu Devi (PW 2), mother of the deceased, Rani Mundain, recorded on 8th May, 1995 at 7 am is that the deceased Rani @ Sani Mundain was living alone in her sasural situate...
Panchu Mahara and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ493
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order of conviction dated 14-3-1995 and sentence dated 21-3-1995 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. .240 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149 and 147, 148, 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo Rule I. for life under Section 302/149, IPC, whereas no separate sentence was passed for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 201, IPC acquitting them for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. The prosecution has arisen on the fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant Bimla Devi (PW-3) recorded on 8-6-1993 at 20.00 hours at her door of village Bhikhanadih, PS-Madhupur, District-Deoghar by S.I., B.D. Singh (PW-6). Informant PW-3 Bimla Devi, wife of deceased Sahdeo Mahara, has alleged that on 8-6-1993 at about 11.00 a.m. her husband Sahdeo Mahara was sitting under a Mango tree at a distance of 250 yards south from her hous...
State of Jharkhand Vs. Samir Kumar Sahu
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-21-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1551
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. By impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6th June, 2003 and 9th June, 2003 respectively passed by Shri Kant Roy, A.D.J. (F.T.C.), Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 2003, the appellant having been sentenced to death, it has been referred to this Court under Section 366, Cr. P.C. for its confirmation.A separate appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2003, vice versa, has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6th June, 2003 and 9th June, 2003 respectively, passed in sessions Trial No. 3 of 2003. By the said judgment, the accused Samir Kumar Sahu having been found guilty of offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years; for offence under section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and; further he having been found guilty under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to death.2. In the p...
Satya NaraIn Sharma Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR219(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 6.6.1997 passed in B.S. Case No. 9/93 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi dismissing the complaint petition under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishement Act.2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed in the year 1962 and was posted at Ranchi and continued to work at Ranchi in the respondents No. 3 company. The company has its Head Office at Calcutta and its different branches at various towns in India including at Patna and Ranchi. According to the petitioner, the work assigned to him was the work of sales representative, in real sense he was not controlling the affairs of the company at Patna. By virtue of a Power of Attorney dated 3.2.1983 the petitioner was given an authority to act as a Manager but the said Power-of-Attorney was executed by respondent No. 3 for specific performance and no absolute power with regard to the management of affairs of...
Bulaki Ram Vs. Jatru Mahali and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)BLJR2003; [2004(4)JCR508(Jhr)]
Vishnudeo Narayan, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs-appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of reversal dated 31st March. 1990 and 10.4.1990 respectively passed in Title Appeal No. 32 of 1988 by Shri Shyama Prasad Singh. 2nd Additional District Judge, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial Court passed in Title Suit No. 116 of 1985 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.2. The plaintiffs-appellant (hereinafter referred to as to the plaintiffs) had filed the said suit for declaration of their title and confirmation of the possession in respect of plot No. 1053 having an area of 10 decimals appertaining to Khata No- 12 situate in village Kurum, P.S. Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh.3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit plot originally belonged to one Mangri Mahli son of Barju Mahli and (he said Kangri Mahli executed a sale deed dated 16.1.1947 for consideration ...
Triveni Enterprises Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: II(2005)BC356; [2004(4)JCR654(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner prays for quashing the decision of the Tender Committee dated 31.5.2004 whereby and whereunder respondent No. 7 has been awarded the work.3. Petitioner's case is that work has been awarded in arbitrary and illegal manner; violating the policy and circulars, only to favour respondent No. 7. Petitioner's further case is that priority is to be given to the tenderer having experience of similar work. Moreover a local tenderer is to be given priority, if other matters are identical. It is submitted that petitioner fulfilled all the. criteria including the aforesaid criteria of having experience of similar work and of being a local contractor. It is further submitted that petitioner is senior to respondent No. 7 as per the seniority list maintained by the Department.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of A.B.L. International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of Ind...
Sohan Chaurasia Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-20-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ443
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard. On 28-4-2004 bail was granted to the petitioner on the basis of following submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner :-'that petitioner is in jail since 14-11-2003, but he has not been put on T.I. Parade as yet, only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused his complicity has come in this case; petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.'2. While hearing B.A. No. 816 of 2004 filed by co-accused Awadesh Kumar Singh it transpired that the materials collected during investigation were not placed before the Court. Thus notices were issued to the petitioner as to why his bail granted on 28-4-2004 be not cancelled.3. On 28-6-2004 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for filing effective show cause it is necessary to know the grounds on which the show cause has to be filed. Accordingly, it was ordered on 28-6-2004 that petitioner may file show cause as to why his bail should not be cancelled as it appears that materials collec...
Raj Kishore Roy and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4397; [2004(3)JCR425(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by Sessions Judge in Session Trial No. 545 of 1995 whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr PC wherein prayer was made to discharge them from the case.2. The opposite party No. 2 complainant Smt. Srita Roy filed complaint case in the Court of C.J.M. Jamshedpur alleging inter alia that she was married to petitioner No. 2 Ravi Shankar Roy on 4.3.1988 and after marriage she was subjected to assault and torture on account of demand of dowry as the same was not fulfilled. It was further alleged that due to sporadic torture and physical assault, miscarriage of the pregnancy was caused twice and during the period of gestation of pregnancy, the accused husband cohabited against her will, as a result of which premature baby was begotten and that she was driven out alongwith her baby, of the house and the accused persons kept all the golden ornaments, we...
Prabhu Mahato Vs. Bhagtu Mahato
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: [2004(4)JCR736(Jhr)]
ORDERN.N. Tiwari, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, IX Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 55 of 2000.2. The defendant is the appellant-appellant. The plaintiff- respondent filed a suit before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhanbad under the provision of Section 87, of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, being 'case No. 673 of 1990.3. The plaintiffs case was that the suit land appertaining to C. S. Khata No. 2, portion of plot No. 337 area 5 decimals corresponding R. S. Khata No. 45, plot No. 471 area 5 decimals of Mouza Kalyanpur was allotted to his share in Title Partition Suit No. 18 of 197.1. Since thereafter the plaintiff has been coming in possession thereof. The further case of the plaintiff was that in the recent revisional survey record of rights the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of the defendant Prabhu Mahato which the plaintiff came to know on 5.4.1990. Thereafter the suit...
State Vs. Mithilesh Kumar Singh
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Jul-19-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4388
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 20-12-2002 passed by Special Judge Central Bureau of investigation cum-4th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad in R. C. No. 1(A)/89(D) whereby he has closed prosecution evidence and the case was fixed for examining the accused and for recording his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C.2. It appears that a criminal case was instituted against the opposite party on the allegation inter alia that he has acquired huge assets both movable and immovable while working at different capacity in BCCL and he could not satisfactorily account for his illegal source of income. On the basis of F.I.R. a case was registered under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is contended that some of the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and some more witnesses have to be examined but the Court below closed the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »