Court : Patna
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 3.11.2012, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2009, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, convicting the accused appellant, namely, Manoj Mahto, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code Consequent upon his conviction as mentioned hereinbefore, he has been sentenced, by order, dated 10.11.2012, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of payment, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described as hereunder:- (i) Deceased Pinki Kumari @ Babita Kumari was wife of accused Manoj Mahto, the marriage between the two having been solemnized in the year 2001. The couple had a female child and used to reside, on rent, in the house of one Bodh Narain, at Mohalla Kamruddinganj, Police Station Laheri, Biharsharif. (ii) On 20.1.2009, at about 7 AM, Dinesh Mahto (P.W.3), br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order contained in Memo No. 1054 dated 28.6.1996 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) VSTPP (Unit) Vindhya Nager, District - Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh). By the said order, punishment of dismissal of petitioner from CISF services has been awarded. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General, CISF, East Zone, Headquarter, Patna, contained in Memo No. 4381 dated 21.6.1997. By the said order, the appellate authority has affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner, who was constable in CISF was charged on an allegation that while he was in CISF unit VSTPP Vindhya Nager, a movement order dated 2.6.1994 was issued directing him to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. By the judgment, dated 04.04.2013, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 2009, by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge III, Gaya, the appellant, Umesh Ravidas, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In consequence of his conviction, the appellant stands, under the order, dated 10.04.2013, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: (i) On 11.06.1994, at about 7:30 AM, Ram Briksh Ravidas went to village Pathara to collect sugarcane leaves from village Pathara. On his return to his village, when Ram Briksh Ravidas reached a place called Aahar, accused Umesh Ravidas and accused Rambali Ravidas, who were sitting under a sheesam tree, noticed Ram Briksh Ravidas coming with leaves of sugarcane on his head. Having noticed Ram Briksh Ravidas so coming with sugarcane leaves on his head, accused Umesh Ravidas, who was holding a knife in his hand, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. By the judgment, dated 28.01.2013, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 389 of 2008, by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-V, Biharsharif at Nalanda, the appellant, Shanti Devi, along with co-accused, Bacchu Singh, stands convicted, under Sections 328 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Following their conviction, the appellant, Shanti Devi, and the co-accused, Bacchu Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stand convicted, under order, dated 31.01.2013, to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for three years. Following their conviction, under Section 328 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appellant and the co-convict, Bacchu Singh, have been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple impri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant Ramchandra Mahto who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, 448 IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for six months under both count independently with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11-08-1994 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Sessions Trial No.168 of 1986. 2. Hari Lal Ram (PW-6) recorded First Information Report on 14.02.1984 at about 03:00 P.M. alleging inter alia that on the same day at about 11:00 A.M. while he was sleeping in his courtyard after taking medicines on account of headache, his neighbour Ram Chandra Mahto came at his Darwaja and inquired about him from his žBhaujaiŸ, Ramdei Devi who disclosed that he has gone to work. Then thereafter Ram Chandra Mahto made house trespass, came near his wife caught hold her with an intention to commit rape. On an alarm raised by his wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. These three appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 29th of November, 2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.747 of 2008 by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, whereunder the appellants, above named, have been convicted for the offence under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and for 10 years with fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine to serve the sentence for the further period of three months under each counts. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant, Nagendra Sah (P.W.9), is that in the night of 5/6.3.2008, he alongwith his family members after taking dinner were sleeping closing the door of his house. At about 1.30 A.M., some persons asked him to open the door,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J. The present Appeal arises from order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bhagalpur dismissing Marriage Case No. 48 of 2005, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act). The parties were married on 20.06.1997. A female child was born from the wedlock. The respondent filed Matrimonial Case No. 17 of 2005 for annulment of the marriage on the ground that the Appellant suffered from unsoundness of mind and consent had been obtained for marriage by suppression. The Appellant also filed Marriage Case No. 48 of 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. Both Suits were decided by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bhagalpur though separately. Matrimonial Case No. 17 of 2005 filed by the respondent for divorce was dismissed on 02.01.2006 after perusing the report of the Director, RINPAS, Kanke in letter no. 6843 dated 24.12.2005 that the Appellant was not suffering from any psychiatric ailme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Heard. The present petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short œCr.P.C.?) with a prayer to quash an order dated 24-05-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria (hereinafter referred to as œMagistrate?) in Case No. CC 19/1997. By the said order, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code (in short œIPC?) and summoned the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 24th May, 2001 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia (hereinafter referred to as œAddl. Sessions Judge?), whereby, Cr. Revision No. 349 of 2000/Tr. No. 32 of 2000 was rejected, which was preferred against the order of cognizance. Short fact of the case is that initially, on the basis of written report filed by the petitioner, an F.I.R., vide Araria P.S. Case No. 244 of 1996, was registered for the offence under Sections 379 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Appellants, Shanti Devi and Fula Devi who have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act vide judgment of conviction dated 05.02.2013 and each of them sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years as well as fined Rs.1,00,000/- in default thereof to undergo S.I. of six months additionally vide judgment of sentence dated 11.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ist-cum-Special Judge (NDPS Act), Gaya in connection with N.D. P.S. Case No.10 of 2010 arising out of Gaya Rail P.S. Case No.65 of 2009 have challenged under instant appeal. 2. PW-6, Gauri Shankar Gupta, Officer-in-charge of Gaya Rail P.S. recorded his self statement on 16.05.2009 at about 03:30 hours in the waiting room situated at platform no.1 disclosing therein that while he along with other G.R.P personnel were on night patrolling and during course thereof, have gone inside waiting room they found two women sitting near bags so picked up whereupon suspicion grew followed with apprehen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Present Election Petition has been filed under Section 80, 80A and 81 of the Representation of the PeopleAct, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the žActŸ) to declare the election of the sole respondent from 28- Munger Parliamentary Constituency, held pursuant to notification dated 02.04.2009, for constituting 14th Lok Sabha void, on the ground that sole respondent committed corrupt practice in the said election within the meaning of sub-section (8) of Section 123 of the Act, his election is fit to be set aside under sub-section (1)(b) of Section 100 of the Act, as with his consent Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai captured Booth Nos. 62 to 72 of Lakhisarai Vidhansabha Constituency, restraining the voters of those booths from casting their vote. Election-petitioner further prayed to direct the Election Commission of India to hold fresh election for 28- Munger Parliamentary Constituency. 2. Perusal of Election Petition and Annexure-1 indicates that election-petitioner con...
Tag this Judgment!