Disposed

Sudru and Ors. v. State

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2012CRA/2925/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal regarding conviction under IPC sections 302/34, 307/34, and 506, the High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the appeal after finding that the appellant Sukru had already been released on completion of his sentence following a Supreme Court remand order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands disposed of as the appellant has already undergone and completed the sentence.

Sudru and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

-^"•'

¶2

ffi.

¶3

8a3©SHa; i©CEJ»^.E H®B@as 8aaHBV'lvaaenr /ldM ^lBt.a»8tg ^ndtepfiBff) S*:a*ll©H&:i:s<a®<r^» KlWqil'' 3pe;' s^iRtft •«•« :'aB^sBg^»^stg 'vSsea '8'& ' ~ <faOB68-Fpe«B efie'tltA ye Bq.aspTsea aae SAeqB iiv s s»e>s

¶4

""—¥<-« ~5 ^-^^ 3y" ^^ --hs^"~wrt ^n^\

¶5

1 »3[S9£f^ paSe 'J' »3t(eH R.itTOyo ueg •naapas •C <e3B8A. 6E:@a®B „ c/A . «B3»i^tiu^qs y@ BOS ^tsvu ?i' <ej^n( aafqa1 I®ss»9£uossenapaeipate' *T ( -s ^Bq.aBi^siaavtpsswsay) 8661/ •eia 'vtasas TOSIHCTS ^'^. gaawaw av aB t@Ia5p-,iE®a,8fl8s HSIH aia si u^) ipusq uoisuiig

ffnai

f ^

SB•.';;

"1:i®: l^jl

-^^' "/'^(^t

HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR

¶15

DIVtSIONBENCH

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, JJ.

¶17

Criminal Appeal No. 2925 of 1998

¶18

^^i

¶19

Appeflants 1. Sudru Aa;ysed

¶20

Hari

¶21

Sukru

¶22

Versus

¶23

Respondent Stete of Chhatti^arh

¶24

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 12) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE^

¶25

Present :

¶26

Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate wth Shri J.K. Gupta.counsel for appellants

¶27

Shri ARhil Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate fbrthe State/respondent. ;

¶28

ORDER

¶29

;^1?y^"53

¶30

(Passed on 1°* December, 20121

¶31

Per T.P. Shamia. J.

¶32

Appellant Sudru died. Appetlant No. 2 and 3 namely Hari and Sukru, have been convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34 end 506 of the IPC, vide judgment dated 30.10.1998 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T.No.462/1993 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/-, R.l. for 7 years & fine of Rs.200/- and R.I. For 1 year, with usual default clauses.

¶33

Vide judgrnent dated 28.02.2007, CrA.No. 2925/1998 flled on behalf of appellant No.1 Sudru and appellant No.2 Hari has been deeided and appeal of appellant Sudru who died on 20.03.Z3(X) stands abated. Appellant No.2 Hari has been acquitted of the

¶34

f ^

¶35

charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 506 of the IPC. However, conviction of appeltant Sukru under Section 302 <rf the IPC has been confirmed and same has been challenged before Supreme Court in CrA.No. 1549/2008. By this appeal flled by appellant Sukru, Supreme Court has remitted the case with the following direction:

¶36

"....we are of the view that it is a frt case wrtiteh should be remitted to the High Court for a fresh determination after taking into consideration the evidence of the defence witnesses also. Such consideration will be confined to his conviction under S«;tion 302 I.P.S. And not In respect of other provisions in respect of which he has been acquitted.

¶37

The judgment of the High Court confirming the conviction and sentence ofthe appellant by thetrialcourt is set-aside to that extent. Since the appellant has already undergone 14yeare' of imprisonment, we request the High Court to dlspose of theappeal withjri a periocj 8f six months from the date of communication ofthis ord»."

¶38

After receiving the case, as per the submission of Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State during the course of heartng the appeal, appellant Sukru has been reteased on 15.08.2011 after eompletion of sentence. After his release on completion of M years of sentence, we do not find any ground for hearing the appeal.

¶39

Viia'/

¶40

Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-
T.P. Sharma
Judge

¶42

¶43

Sd/-
^.Cbandra^ar
Judge

Sudru and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudru and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of M.P. Vs Marshal and Ors.

Dhaniram Sona and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgar Vs Chhediram and Anr.

Sangram Singh @ Sangram @ Ashok Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rameshwar Prasadn Gabel and Ors.

Barsati Lal Yadav Vs Amar Bahadur Singh and Ors.