Jharkhand Court March 2006 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.
Anita Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR206(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.8.1992 (Annexure 1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. 57 of 1989, (adopting the order of the same date passed in the connected case being Case No. 51 of 1989-Annexure 1/A); and also the order dated 26.12.1988 (Annexure 2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in Case No. XV/31/86-87 (adopting the order passed in Case No. XV/27/87-88-Annexure 2/A); and also the order dated 7.4.1986 (Annexure 3) passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in L.C. Case No. 51/73-74.2. A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was started against one Shyam Bihari Singh by the Additional Collector, Daltonganj who by his order dated 18.10.1976 held that the land holder was entitled to retain 45 acres of Class IV land and the rest of the area was declared as surplus. The said order was confirmed by the Deput...
Lal Marandi Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3568; [2006(2)JCR495(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd May, 1991, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 410 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years under both the counts for the said offence. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution in short is that Sriful Hansda (PW 2) the wife of Churka Marandi (PW 3) lodged a written report before the police alleging therein that on 15.4.1990 she was at the house of Barka Marandi (PW 6) for taking Pochai drink. In the meantime the appellant Lal Marandi of the same village came there, caught hold of her and, thereafter, dragged her towards the jungle with a view to commit rape on her. She wanted to raise alarm but the appellant gagged her mouth by putting cloth and, therefor...
Asani Roy and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR114(Jhr)]
ORDER1. The appellants 1 to 4 were arrayed as A-2, A-4, A-l and A-3, in that order, before the trial Judge to face a charge of murder and also a charge under Section 323, IPC on the allegation that they in furtherance of common intention of one another beat the deceased Beta Lal Tudu @ Chhotu Lal Tudu and further that they also caused simple injuries to PW 6 Charan Tudu and PW 8 Darbari Tudu. The trial Judge, finding the appellants guilty as charged while sentencing each of them to two months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, IPC, directed them to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The above appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.2. In the Judgment, the appellants will be referred as A-1 to A-4 in the same order as they were arrayed before the Sessions Judge. Asani Rai and Gundu Roy, A-2 and A-3 are the brothers, Badri Roy A-4 is the uncle of A-2 and A-3 and Shibu Roy A-1 is the cousin of A-2 and A-3.3. On 1.5.1998, the deceas...
N.K. Birla Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR108(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard Mr. Bajaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Government Pleader No. II for the respondents.2. With the consent of the parties, this application is being finally heard and disposed of at this stage itself.3. In the present application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 26 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 2 and 3-A of the Forest Conservation Act against the petitioner and others and has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against him mainly on the ground that the cognizance taken against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences was barred by law of limitation as envisaged under Section 468(2) of the Cr PC.4. It appears that on 7.11.1997, the Range Officer of the Forest, Lohardaga reported to the Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Ranchi that on 6.11.1997 w...
Mithan Mahto and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR487(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar In Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants Mithan Mahto and Bhukhan Mahto for committing the offence under Sections 366, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years for the said offence and they have been also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default to undergo S.I. for a further period of one month each.2. The prosecution case in short is that the victim girl Kalawati Devi (PW 10) aged about 16 years developed intimacy with the appellants Mithan Mahto and Bhukhan Mahto, who were the residents of adjacent village and they used to visit the village of the informant frequently in connection with cultivation work.Further case of the prosecution is that on 31,12.1995 at about 7.00 p.m. the girl Kalawati Devi, i.e. the daughter of th...
Hopna Kisku and anr. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR412(Jhr)]
1. The appellants, Hopna Kisku and Shibnath Kisku, were arrayed as A-2 and A-3, along with Patni Marandi, who was arrayed as A-1. They were charged under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 23.4.1983 at about 6.00 p.m. the appellants caused injury to Matal Kisku, father of PW 12, and as a result of the said in-juries the said Matal Kisku died later at the hospital on 24.4.1983.2. The learned trial Judge, while acquitting Patni Marandi, who was arrayed as A-1, convicted the appellants, who were arrayed as A-2 and A~3, and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life tinder Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The present appeal by the convicted accused-appellants is against their conviction and sentence.3. There was a dispute pending between the deceased Matal Kisku and the appellants as regards the enjoyment of a mahua tree as both were claiming to be the owners of the said tree. At about 6.00 p.m. on 23.4.1983, quarrel ensued between the appel...
Deba Prasad Chakraborty and Smt. Bimla Devi and ors. Vs. State of Jhar ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-29-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR216(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. In both the writ petitions, as almost similar orders are under challenge, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Petitioner Deo Prasad Chakraborty [W.P. (C) No. 5244 of 2005] has challenged letter No. 839 dated 31st August, 2005, issued by the Deputy Development Com-missioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, he has intimated the petitioner that the land, just below the over- bridge, Purana Bazar, Dhanbad, has been encroached by him and thereby, asked him to remove the encroachment or otherwise the District Board will have to remove the same. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 10th August, 2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder. petitioners of both the writ petitions and some others have been shown encroachers over the land, in question.3. Petitioners Srimati Bimla Devi and eight others have also challenged the ...
Manjai Yadav and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(2)JCR444(Jhr)]
1. The appellants are A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, All, A12, A13, A14, A15 and A16. Toti Yadav, who was arrayed as AID, was acquitted by the Trial Judge. In this judgment, the appellants and Toti Yadav will be referred as A1 to A16 in the same order as they were arrayed before the Trial Judge for the sake of convenience.2. All the appellants accused and Toti Yadav were charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C and A1 Manjai Yadav was not only charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C but also charged under Section 302 I.P.C. The Trial Judge, while finding A1 Manjai Yadav as well as other accused except A10 Toti Yadav guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C, found A1 Manjai Yadav guilty under Section 302 I.P.C, which we find it to be strange as no man can be convicted twice for the same offence. On being convicted, each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life.3. The facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows:-The deceased ...
Dharmendra Kumar @ Anil Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR96(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner Dharmendra Kumar @ Anil Kumar has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for setting aside the order impugned dated 17.8.2003 passed by Shri M. Mahto, Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Ranch! in Sessions Trial No. 544/02 at the fag end of the trial when the judgment was to be pronounced.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order impugned was passed on the date when it was fixed for the delivery of the judgment after conclusion of the trial. After examination of the prosecution witnesses the accused persons including the petitioner were examined under Section 313, Cr PC and after entering into the defence three witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the defence.3. The brief fact of the case related to Hatia P.S. Case No. 84/02 corresponding to G.R. No. 1065/2002 was that the informant Kameshwar Prasad Singh had brought about the case for the offence under Sections 366/363/376, IPC against the petitione...
Shiv Kumar Lal Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-28-2006
Reported in: [2006(3)JCR99(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for the quashing of the order impugned 27.2.2004 passed by the Court of Shiv Vishal Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1051 of 2003 whereby the cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner under Section 341/323, IPC.2. The brief fact of the case is that the informant-Opposite Party No. 2 presented a written report before Officer-in-charge of Dhanbad Police Station stating that on 31.5.2001 when he returned back to his home situated in the Water Board Colony of Hirapur, he found some noise there and that the petitioner with two other persons removing Barbed Wire from the Iron Angles which he had used for the fencing of his own Plot No. 2435 and in such action he has demolished the brick pillar and that the petitioner with two others has removed the Barbed Wire and the Iron Angle and took these items away with them causing loss to the informant to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »