Court : Jharkhand
Criminal Revision No. 637 of 2002 Against the judgment dated 23.09.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1997 --- 1.Pabrit Poddar son of Late Bisu Poddar 2.Sita Ram Sah son of Late Bisan Sah 3.Lalu Rana son of Late Surju Rana 4.Ganesh Sah son of Late Bishan Sah 5.Gunadhar Mandal son of Fekan Mandal 6.Jay Narain Poddar son of Late Bishu Poddar 7.Lakheshwar Rana son of hari Rana 8.Shital Rana son of Hari Rana 9.Kishun Rana son of Hari Rana 10.Nuneshwar Rana son of Hari Rana 11.Sanjay Sah son of Late Bishan Sah 12.Jayo Rana son of Lalu Rana 13.Lakhi Narain Sah son of Late Bishan Sah 14.Mukund Murari Mandal son of Gunadhar Mandal all resident of village Deoghar bad, PS Sarath, PO Patharda, District Deoghar Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Jamadar Rana son of Lilu Rana, resident of village Deogarbad PO Patharda, PS Sarath, Dist. Deoghar Opposite Parties --- For the Petitioners : Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
ACQUITTAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF2003----- ( Against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2002 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Rai, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, III, Dhanbad in Cr. Appeal No. 20/2000) ----- The State of Jharkhand. . . . . Appellant Versus Ghuran Mandal, Dhanbad. . . . Respondent. ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh For the Respondent : M/s Gautam Kumar & Anil Kr.Singh. ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMR ----- C.A.V. On 06.10.2015 Delivered on:12. 07/2016 ----- R.N.VERMA,J.The State of Jharkhand has preferred this Acquittal Appeal under section 378(1)2(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Code ) against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.08.2002 passed by Sri Arun Kumar Rai, Additional District and Sessions Judge- III Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2000, whereby and where under the accused Ghuran Mandal has been acquitted of the charges for the offence under sections 353/323 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction of other two ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR513(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. The instant revision application has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, XX, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 216 of 2007 whereby the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 52 of the Act against the order dated 21.9.2007 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Ranchi rejecting the petitioner's prayer for bail, was dismissed.2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner was made an accused in a case registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the petitioner, the co-accused in the case are his father and other members of his family. Since the petitioner was found to be a juvenile on the date of occurrence, his case was forwarded for inquiry and disposal to the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner filed his prayer for ball under Section 12 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3347; [2008(3)JCR237(Jhr)]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Both the appeals arising out of the same impugned judgment, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. All the three appellants in both the appeals stand convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine they will further suffer three months S.I. each. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.2. Factual matrix leading to these appeals are that in the morning of 4.4.1997 the informant PW 8 was ploughing his land situated in Mauza Gahanadih, P.S. Gamharia while the deceased Guru Prasad Mahato alongwith his mother Shanti Mahatain was mending ridge of the fields nearby. As further stated at 7.30 a.m. appellant Shib Prasad Mahato arrived there and asked them not to dig the soil on which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : I(2005)DMC702; [2004(4)JCR119(Jhr)]
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Petitioners in this Criminal Writ Petition have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 947 of 2003. lodged under Sections 323, 341, 306, 498A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act., pending in the Court of Sri O.P. Singh, learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.2. The allegation, as levelled by the complainant Priya Pandey (Opposite Party No. 2) in the complaint petition against these petitioners and others, is that all the accused persons, named therein, are related, inter se, as husband, dewar, mother-in-law, father-in-law and maternal cousin-in-laws (mousi sas). The complainant was married with accused No. 1 Manish Pandey (not petitioner herein) on 30.5.2002 at Ranchi. Her father paid Rs. 5,51,000/- towards dowry demand and also spent a huge amount in the marriage. Prior to the marriage, on the occasion of ring ceremony on 18.4.2002, these petitioners (mousi...
Tag this Judgment!