Patna Court May 2011 Judgments
Vishwambhar Malakar and Others Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. The appellants have been convicted u/s.376 (2) (g) I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years as also u/s.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to six months R.I. and in addition the appellant no.2 has been convicted u/s.509 I.P.C. and sentenced to three months S.I. by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.310 of 1994/ 22 of 1996/ 153 of 1996 by a judgment dated 11.10.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.3.1994 at about 7-8 P.M. while the informant and her niece had gone to ease themselves, the accused persons surrounded them and committed rape upon them. When they resisted, they were also assaulted and in addition the accused persons also cut the hair of the informant. When the two ladies returned to their house they informed P.W.8, the mother of one of the victims. They were so afraid of making any report that they waited for t...
Tag this Judgment!Snehi Rai and Others Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. All the criminal appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by the common judgment and order as all the appellants have preferred appeals against the order of conviction and sentence recorded in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1996 / 100 of 2006 arising out of Tariyani P.S. Case No. 16 of 1994 (G. R. No. 60 of 1994). [Originally there were 21 named accused persons in the First Information Report out of which one accused Chandeswar Rai, son of Jainandan Rai died during the course of investigation. The co-accused Dukhit Rai, son of Pyare Rai and Kishori Rai, son of Bishundayal Rai died during the course of session’s trial at the stage after recording their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and so the case abated against them. Rest 18 accused persons on trial convicted have preferred the appeals as aforesaid. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants, Ram Snehi Rai and Ram Faresh Rai of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 868 of 2007 d...
Tag this Judgment!Kamta Prasad Singh Vs. the Nalanda GramIn Bank and Others
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Nalanda Gramin Bank. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.2.1996 passed by the respondent no.2, the Chairman-cum-Disciplinary authority, Nalanda Gramin Bank by which the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of reduction of three increments in his pay scale from immediate effect as also the order dated 20.1.1996 passed by the appellate authority, Board of Directors, by which the punishment has been reduced to reduction of two increments from his pay scale. 3. The petitioner while posted as Area Manager in the respondent-Bank was placed under suspension by order dated 5.5.1994 and departmental proceedings were thereafter initiated against him. Two supplementary charge sheets were also issued. The total number of charges were 14. The Enquiry Officer found that all the charges except two, (charge nos. 5 and 9) were proved against the petitioner. On a consideration o...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kishore Singh Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-17-2011
1. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Awadhesh Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Zila Parishad, Nalanda and its functionaries. However, no one appears on behalf of State of Bihar and its functionaries. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 25.8.1993(Annexure-5), passed in Encroachment Case no. 14 of 1991(Zila Parishad, Nalanda v. Raj Kishore Singh) by respondent District Collector, Nalanda, in exercise of his powers under Section 11 of The Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 (in short „Act), whereby the aforesaid appeal filed on behalf of the respondent Zila Parishad was allowed and the order dated 10.9.1992 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent DCLR in Encroachment Case No. 1 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mithilesh Kumar Jha Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. No.100 of 1996 has been convicted u/ss.363 and 364 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for eight years and seven years respectively, whereas the appellants Kedar Jha and Gopal Jha of Criminal Appeal No.100 of 1996 have been convicted u/s.368 read with Section 365 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Benipur in Sessions Trial No.6 of 1993/ 30 of 1994 by a judgment dated 30.3.1996. 2. The prosecution case, according to P.W.8, the Officer Incharge of Bahera P.S., is that he had received secret information that the appellant Mithilesh Kumar Jha had brought a boy to his village and was planning to sell him. On this information, he raided the house of the appellants Kedar Jha and Gopal Jha, from where the appellant Mithilesh Kumar Jha was caught with the boy, who was allegedly kidnapped. He confessed that he used to work at Kanpur and on account of annoyance with his employer he had brought his son from the lawful custody of his parents. 3. During trial t...
Tag this Judgment!Kamla Kant Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by a Judgment dated 30.11.1996 by the Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in G.R. Case No. 2268 of 1990 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a find of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which further imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant was seen on a public carrier on which 51 bags of rice was loaded and he produced two cash memos, one for 25 bags whereas the other for 26 bags which was in favour of Bhola Sah. Since Bhola Sah was not present on the truck it was speculated that the rice was being taken for black marketing. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses out of whom PW-1 is merely on the point that the Appellant had failed to produce any license with regard to 25 bags of rice and, therefore, it would be suspected that it was being taken for black marketing. PW-2 2was the District Supply Officer is on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Usman, S/O Late Md. Salim Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 4-B and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to RI for seven years and five years respectively by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr. No. 190 of 1990 by a judgment dated 08.08.1996. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14.11.1989 when the informant was proceeding for investigation he surrounded the house of one Md. Rafique Ahmad @ Butto Mian on suspicion and on entering the same he found 22 bombs and four persons present in the house two of them were appellants. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 7 and P.W. 10 had been declared hostile. P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 have been tendered whereas P.W. 8 is the informant. P.W. 9 2 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 are Home Guards who had formed the raiding team whereas P.W. 4 has proved the sanction order. 4. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 all that has transpired ...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Singh Son of Mahesh Singh Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The Appellants Sanjay Singh, Madhav Singh and Tiran Singh @ Md. Tiran have been convicted under Sections 366A, 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years each under Section 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1995 by a judgment dated 30.11.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the PW-6, the father of the victim is that on 29.1.1995 the present Appellants and one Rajendra Yadav dragged the victim to their houses and after the First Information Report was instituted, on the next date she was recovered from the house of Rajendra Yadav. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-8 are on the point of kidnapping. Out of these witnesses, PW-8 is the victim herself and PW-6 is the Informant. PW-2, PW-5 and PW-9 who is the Inve...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Raquibui Son of Late Md. Ishahaque Vs.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The Appellant has been convicted under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years by a Judgment dated 29.11.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 1994/27 of 1994 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.6.1993, an altercation arose between the Appellant and the Informant and he along with his wife came and assaulted the Informant with Farsa and dagger. 3. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom PW-1 stated in his cross-examination that he had no knowledge why the altercation had taken place. PW-4 and PW-7 have declared hostile whereas PW-5 and PW-6 are formal 2 witnesses. PW-9 is the Doctor who examined the injured and PW-8 is Informant. PW-10 is a formal witness. 4. On going through the analysis of evidence, I find that only the Informant and his wife (PW-2) have supported the case of the prosecution but their evidence is completely trustwor...
Tag this Judgment!Gandra Munda Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-16-2011
1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in S.Tr. No. 113/95/47/95 by a judgment dated 19.04.1996. 2. The prosecution case is that on 14.02.1995 when the informant P.W. 5 went on the roof of the Sessions Office he received information from the deceased that some body was throwing bricks at which they went there to verify the matter. The appellant who was standing on the roof gave a brick blow on the head of the deceased on account of which he fell down, while the informant fled away from there. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. P. W. 6 is the Doctor who performed the post-mortem whereas P.W. 1, P.W. 3, 2 P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 have deposed as eye-witnesses. P.W. 2 is the brother of the deceased and P.W. 7 is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »