Jharkhand Court November 2011 Judgments

Amulya Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Another

Court: Jharkhand

By Court. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the O.P. State. No one appeared for the private O.P. No.2, even though, notice was issued to the said O.P., which has been validly served. The O.P. No. 2 has not even filed her appearance in this Court. As such learned counsel Shri Jai Shankar Tiwary, who had appeared for her at the time of Special Leave to Appeal, was asked whether he would accept notice for O.P. No. 2, who, after consulting the client, declined to accept the same. 2.The appellant complainant filed the complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, being complaint case no. 2012 of 2007 in which the present O.P. No.2 was made an accused in the capacity of Director of M/s Varun Santi Home Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in the complaint petition that the said Varun Santi Home Pvt. Ltd., had entered into a development agreement with the complainant and his six brothers, who had inherited the entire estate of their father late Rabhubansh ...

Dr. Ram Naresh Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and Another

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ294(NOC)

By Court Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated 21.09.1998 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.453 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner, under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharging the petitioner from the case, was rejected. The facts giving rise this application are that the informant lodged a case before Bariatu police station putting allegations that the petitioner had taken her daughter with him for taking household work for his son-in-law, but the petitioner never allowed her to meet her daughter nor the petitioner did pay money to her. On such allegations, Bariatu (Gonda) P.S. Case No.40 of 1995 was instituted under Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The matter was taken up for investigation. After completion of the investigation, ...

Praduman Kumar Pradhan and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ272(NOC)

1. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. 2. These appeals arise out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2001 and 28.6.2011 respectively, passed by Shree P.N. Lal, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saraikella, in Sessions Trial No. 238/ 1999, convicting the appellants namely Praduman Kumar Pradhan, Pramod Pradhan, Prakash Pradhan (in Cr. Appeal No. 366/2001) and Ketaki Pradhan (in Cr. Appeal No. 287/2001) for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Antarjami Pradhan (in Cr. Appeal No. 317/2001) has been convicted for the offence under section 302/120 of the Indian Penal Code. Pramod Pradhan has also been convicted under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life and appellant Pramod Pradhan has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. However the sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The pros...

their Workmen Rep. by Surendra Rai, Area Secretary, Rashtriya Colliery ...

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ265(NOC)

By Court 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgement dated 20th December, 2006 by which the C.W.J.C. No. 856 of 1993(R) and 859 of 1993(R) were allowed and the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 32 of 1989 and Reference Case No. 35 of 1989 had been set aside. 3. The award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Reference Case Nos. 32 and 35 of 1989 was under challenge by preferring writ petitions before this Court and those writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 856 of 1993(R) and 859 of 1993(R) were dismissed vide order dated 10th August, 1998 upholding both the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The order dated 10th August, 1998 was challenged by preferring two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 424 and 425 of 1998 (R), which too were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17th May, 1999. The employees preferred Civil Appeal No. 1902 and 1903 of 2000 before the Hon'...

Babudhan Murmu and Another Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

D.N. Upadhyay, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.01.2003 and 10.01.2003 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 540 of 1990/64 of 2002 corresponding to Litipara (District – Pakur) P.S. Case No. 04/1989 [G.R. No. 44 of 1989] whereby and whereunder, both the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of making payment of fine, further imprisonment for six months. 2. The facts emerging from the records are Manjhi Hansda and Hullue Hansda, the brothers of the informant, had been sleeping in a hut situated outside the house on 1st February, 1989. On the following morning, since they did not return home till 7:00 a.m., the informant got worried and went to the huts and found the duo injure...

The State of Jharkhand and Another Vs. Alber Oraon and Another

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ336(NOC)

D.N. Upadhyay, J. 1. The criminal appeal and the death reference, referred to above, have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.10.2010 and 06.10.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in Sessions Trial No.71 of 2009 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No.195 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No.596 of 2008 whereby the sole appellant Alber Oraon has been held guilty and awarded death sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 201 I.P.C. In default of making the payment of fine further simple imprisonment for three months has been awarded. 2. The fardbeyan of Sunil Munda recorded on 14.12.2008 at 22.30 hours at village Kutmu, P.S.-Lohardaga unfold the following facts: Pushpa Devi (sister of informant) along with her two children, Dipika Kumari aged 8 years and Sudarshan Munda aged 6 years (all deceased), was living at village Kutmu after the death of her husband Dilip Ku...

Balram Mahto and Another Vs. the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ270(NOC)

By Court. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2003 and 28.02.2003 respectively, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. II, Jamshedpur, Singbhum East, in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2000, convicting the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 16.4.1999 at about 9.15 A.M., P.W.-1-Kutubddin Ansari (elder brother of the deceased) lodged a fardbeyan. He said that there was some dispute between the deceased-Salimuddin and the wife of the appellant-Balram Mahato about 2 and 1/2 months back regarding taking water from hand pump (chapakal). After about 15 days, the appellant-Balram Mahto in intoxicated condition came to the house of P.W-1 and asked regarding whereabouts of the deceased. Thereafter, he threatened with dire consequences. When P.W-1 along with his brother P.W-2 and the deceased were r...

Ram Lal Layak Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ293(NOC)

By Court: 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.7.2004 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC) Dumka, in Sessions case No.77 of 2003/ 105 of 2003 whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 302 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- ( rupees one thousand )and, in default of payment, to undergo further simpleimprisonment of three months. 2. Prosecution case, in short, as emerges from the fard beyan lodged by the informant PW9 is that on 5.11.2001 he learnt from another witness that the appellant had cut the right hand of his father Jharo Paraiya (deceased). 3. On the basis of the said fard beyan of the informant, Saraiyahat PS Case No. 153/2001 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and he faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid. 4. Dr Dinanath Pandey PW1 conducted post mortem on the dead body of the dece...

Arbind Kumar Singh and Others Vs. the State of Jharkhand and Another

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ300(NOC)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners being C.P. Case No. 1103/2007 including the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 323/342 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant-respondent as well as his witness Md. Mustkim, both have criminal antecedent and are accused in criminal cases which are being investigated by the petitioner No. 1 because he is a Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force. It is submitted that without any reason, only with an ill motive and enmity, a complaint case has been filed but it will appear from the allegation leveled in the complaint itself that in fact no criminal case is made out from the facts mentioned in the complaint and if any inference of criminality may be drawn from the facts stated in the comp...

Kujri Jonko and Others the State of Jharkhand

Court: Jharkhand

Reported in: 2012CrLJ261(NOC)

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.9.2000 passed by Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 472 of 1989 convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 148 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 and R.I. for four years under Section 201 of I.P.C. and R. I. for one year under Section 148 of I.P.C. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 17.7.1988, the appellants along with 20-25 persons came armed with deadly weapons and proceeded towards the husband of the informant – Bijay Jonko who was working in the field. The informant – Nitima Kui (P.W. 2) raised alarm on which P.W. 3 with a view to save Bijay Jonko took him into his house. But, one Tuti Jonko and appellant no. 5 – Rasika Jonko climbed on the tile roof and after breaking it entered into the house and brought Bijay outside the house and then all the accused pe...