Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2006CriLJ769; [2005(4)JCR300(Jhr)]
..... 176 of 1994 (p)], manoj and prince, she also identified both the appellant in dock.she further stated that azad anwar kept her at calcutta for two weeks in his sister's house and thereafter removed her to the house of sister of prince where she remained for two days. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : I(2005)DMC138; [2004(4)JCR278(Jhr)]
r.k. merathia, j.1. heard mr. t.r. bajaj, for the appellant and mr. s.k. dutta learned app for the state.2. this appeal arises out of the judgment dated 15th february, 2000, passed by shri sheo kumar prasad, learned 5th additional sessions judge, hazaribagh in sessions trial no. 272 of 1997 convicting the appellants under sections 304b/34 of the indian penal code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each.3. on the basis of a written report (ext. 4) of devendra mohan prasad (informant pw 6) father of baby @ sunita kumari (deceased) fir (ext. 6) was drawn. as per the written report, sunita kumari got married with dr. abinash chandra prabhakar (appellant no. 3) about a year ago. at the time of marriage, informant had given 'dahej' according to his capacity but the in-laws of the daughter were not satisfied with it and they used to demand more 'dahej' on telephone and through letters. on 7.3.1996, the informant gave a maruti car to his daughter in 'bedaigiri. thereafter his daughter was happy for sometime but the in-laws again started torturing her after a month for the demand of more dowry. on 3.12.1996 at about 5.45 a.m. in the morning, informant received a message on telephone by appellant no. 1 that sunita kumari had sustained some burn injuries while she was boiling milk. telephone was cut. he waited for more information. he became suspicious. thereafter he along with his son, manoj kumar (pw 5), his brother dr. ashok mehta (pw 2) and his .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
j.c.s. rawat, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.3.1993 passed by 1st additional judicial commissioner/additional sessions judge, ranchi in sessions trial no. 377/34 of 1988 by which the accused appellants have been convicted under sections 302, 498a of the indian penal code and section 4 of the dowry prohibition act and and each of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 of the indian penal code and three years rigorous imprisonment under section 498a ipc and six months rigorous imprisonment under section 4 of the dowry prohibition act. all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case is that a written report was lodged by talat pravin-pw-7 who is the material aunt of shama khatoon, the deceased alleging that on 27.6.1985, it was informed to her that the deceased shama khatoon has sustained some burn injuries and she has been admitted in rajendra medical college and hospital, ranchi. thereafter, pw-7, talat praveen, maternal aunt of the deceased, the mothre of the deceased (pw-4 najima khatoon) and the brother of the deceased, (saiyad javed) reached at the hospital where they found that the deceased was on the bed and she had sustained burn injuries. when she was asked how she reserved the burn injuries, she told them that she had been burnt by her mother-in-law and husband. she however stated that she was tied up with rope and her mouth was closed by cloth and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : II(2002)DMC411
vikramaditya prasad, j.1. the appellants stand convicted for the offence under section 302/34, ipc and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. the following facts are not in dispute(i) the victim savita devi (deceased) was married to appellant no. 1 one year prior to her death (ii) on 16.6.1992 she received 3rd & 4th degree of burn injuries while she was in the house of her in-laws and (iii) she succumbed to that injuries in the same night.3. ext. 2--the fardbeyan of the victim who subsequently died was recorded by one s.i., a.k. jha at 23.15 hours on 16,6.1992 at the patliputra medical college & hospital in the surgical ward no. 81e wherein the victim stated that she was married to raj kumar one year back and when she came to her matrimonial house, her mother-in-law, a.2 and her husband (1994)2scc, used to tell that your brother had given nothing and not even a tickley. she had passed in confrontation of these events. in her naihar, on 16.6.1992 when after doing the household works, she was sleeping, at about 4.00 p.m. al and a2 came into the room and told that she did not work rather she was always sleeping, then they assaulted her the mother-in-law a2 ordered that she would be burnt to death. then al put k. oil on her head and set fire with a matchbox and bolted the door from outside. because of the burns, she started crying and also started dashing the door, when after sometime on her cries, people came and opened the door, took her out and brought her to hospital. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3938
1. by the above appeal, the appellant, md. wahab mian, challenges his conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial judge. he was tried and convicted under section 302 read with section 149 i.p.c, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment and for the offence under section 148 i.p.c, he was sentenced to one year r.i. on being found guilty under section 436 i.p.c, he was sentenced to ten years r.i. he was also found guilty under section 3 & 5 of explosive substance act, for which he was sentenced to r.i. for two years with a direction that the sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. 2. the facts leading to the charges and consequent conviction and sentence can be briefly summarized as follows: kadir mian (d1) is the brother of p.w.13 md. taki mian. taslim mian (d2) is the nephew of p.w.13. p.w.8 saliman bibi is the wife of p.w.13. kasim mian p.w.2 and muslim mian p.w.6 are sons of d1 kadir mian. kulsun bibi is the wife of the said dl kadir mian. they were residing in village raghunathpur. p.w.13 and d1 kadir mian were police informants. they used to give information about the activities of anti-social elements. according to the prosecution, p.w.13 gave details as to the activities of rafique mian, who is one of the associates of the appellant, by complaining that they are preparing bombs and are indulging criminal activities. sometime prior to the date of incident, which took place on the date of 6/7.1.1982, rafique mian and his nephew alauddin mian .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
1 criminal appeal no. 804 of 2003 with criminal appeal no. 902 of 2003 (against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.5.2003 passed by sri. chandra prakash asthana, learned 9th additional sessions judge, hazaribagh in s.t. no. 119 of 2001). ---------- cr.appeal no. 804 of 2003 1.parvati devi, wife of shanakar mahto 2.shankar mahto, son of late thannu mahto, both residents of village jaipahari p.s barkiatha district hazaribagh. ...... appellants versus the state of jharkhand ...... respondent cr.appeal no. 902 of 2003 nageshwar prasad son of sri. shankar mahto village jaipahari p.s barkatha district. hazaribagh .... appellant - versus - the state of jharkhand respondent for the appellants :- mr. kripa shankar nanda, advocate for the state :- mr. ajimuddin, a.p.p for the informant :- mr. a.k.sahani advocate mr. sahdeo choudhary advocate present hon'ble mr. justice ratnaker bhengra c.a.v on 20.6.2016 delivered on 28- 10- 2016 ratnaker bhengra,j.these criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.5.2003 in s.t. no. 119 of 2001 passed by the learned, 9th additional sessions judge, hazaribagh whereby the appellants above named have been found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304b of the indian penal code. the appellants shankar mahto and nageshwar prasad have been further found guilty for the 2 offence punishable under sections 201/34 of the indian penal code and accordingly, they have been further .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR2352; 2007CriLJ3086
orderd.g.r. patnaik, j.1. by the judgment dated 12.2.2002 passed in sessions trial no. 526 of 1993, the special judge, hazaribagh, had convicted the appellant for offences under sections 366, 376, 302/34 ipc and section 3(2)(v) of the scheduled castes & scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act. while sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life was awarded for the offence under sections 302/34 ipc read with section 3(2)(v) sc/st act, sentence of ten years for each of the offences under section 366 ipc and 376 ipc was awarded besides sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under sections 201 ipc. two other co-accused who were also put on trial, were however acquitted of the charges.the gist of the charge being that on 5.11.1992, the appellant along with two other co-accused persons namely md. nijamuddin ansari and ramnath singh had abducted the prosecutrix and committed gang rape on her and thereafter, caused fatal injuries to her resulting in her death.2. the facts of the case, in brief, is that on 5.11.1992, the prosecutrix was travelling by a bus from ranchi to her sister's house at giddi. the bus had stopped at a railway level crossing at patratu since the gate was closed. it was at about 5.30 p.m. there were few passengers in the bus all of whom, except the prosecutrix, got down from the bus for having refreshments at a near-by the tea-stall. at that time, the appellant, whom the prosecutrix knew from before as a bus conductor, reached there on a motor cycle .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4589; I(2002)DMC152
deoki nandan prasad, j.1. this criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.1.2000/17.1.2000 passed by shri awadh kishore singh chauhan, 1st additional session judge, hazaribagh in sessions trial no. 299/1995, whereby and hereunder the learned sessions judge convicted the appellants under sections 304b and 201 of the indian penal code and sentenced them to undergo r.i. for 10 years under section 304b, i.p.c. and one year r.i. under section 201, i.p.c. each. however, both sentences ordered to run concurrently.2. the case of the prosecution in brief is that chinta devi deceased was married with the appellant no. 3, raj kumar mahto on 5.5.1992 and since after the marriage accused persons/appellants started demanding rajdoot motorcycle and a golden chain weighing two tolas and due to non-fulfilment of the demands, chinta devi was subjected to torture. it is further alleged that chinta devi whenever came to her naihar she stated about the said demands and torture meted to her by the in-laws/appellants. it is further alleged that on 6.2.1995 at about 11 a.m. two persons of village koriyadih came to the informant's village and informed that his sister had fled away. on this information, informant alongwith his father and other rushed to the sasural of the deceased. on enquiry, the accused persons disclosed that his sister has fled away. therefore, the informant alongwith others started searching but she could not be traced out and as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
..... learned g.p.ii has urged this court to have a revisit to the order passed in the case of prince khan (supra) on the precincts of a decision rendered by a three judge bench of the hon ble supreme court in the case of t. ..... it is to be noted herein that the order passed in prince khan (supra) was in view of the judgment rendered by the hon ble supreme court in the case of cherukuri mani (supra). ..... in the case of prince khan (supra) this court had not gone into a detailed study of the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 12 of the act as the judgment of t. ..... devaki (supra) was never brought to the notice of the hon ble supreme court or before this court at the time of deliverance of the judgment in the case of prince khan (supra). ..... devaki (supra) this court is compelled to revisit the order which has been passed in the case of prince khan (supra). ..... government of tamil nadu and others reported in [(1990) 2 scc456 which was neither brought to the notice of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of cherukuri mani (supra) or of this court in the case of prince khan (supra). ..... chief secretary, government of andhra pradesh and others reported in [(2015) 13 scc722 as well as an order passed by this court in the case of prince khan vs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
in the high court of jharkhand ranchi a.b.a. no. 4196 of 2012 prins singh ... ... ... petitioner versus the state of jharkhand ... ... opp. party coram: honble mr. justice prashant kumar ............ for the petitioner : mr. rajan raj for the state : mr. krishna shankar, a.p.p. ........ 8/16.08.2013 anticipatory bail application filed by prins singh in connection with govindpur (barwadda) p.s. case no. 252 of 2010, corresponding to g.r. no. 2298 of 2010 pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, dhanbad is moved by sri rajan raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by sri krishna shankar, learned additional pp. for the state. it reveals from criminal antecedent report at flag-r that apart from this case, petitioner is also involved in two other cases of similar nature. under the said circumstance, i am not inclined to enlarge petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. accordingly, his anticipatory bail application rejected. (prashant kumar, j.) binit
Tag this Judgment!