Disposed¶24

Murli @ Mukesh Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Apr 2025CRA/398/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; CRA No. 398 of 2020; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:16795; Justice Arvind Kumar Verma; Section 374(2) CrPC criminal appeal; Section 307 IPC conviction; Special Juvenile Session Trial No. 02/2020; Crime No. 554/2016; Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg; disposal of appeal after sentence already undergone and fine deposited; appellant absent, legal aid counsel Krishna Tandon nominated; Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 14 SCC 222; Suresh Singh v. State of Haryana (2007) 13 SCC 518 para 12; fine Rs. 1,000/-; jail report Central Jail Jagdalpur and Central Jail Durg.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal disposed of without being pressed on merits; written instructions received from the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, District Durg (C.G.) directed to be kept on record. ¶24

Murli @ Mukesh Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal disposed of without being pressed on merits; written instructions received from the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, District Durg (C.G.) directed to be kept on record.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether, no one appearing for the appellant, the hearing required adjournment and fresh notice, or could proceed with a counsel nominated from the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee assisting the Court. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh), it was not necessary to adjourn the case and issue fresh notice to the absent appellant, as his interest had been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Since the appellant had already completed his jail sentence, deposited the fine amount and been released from jail, and his counsel did not want to press the appeal on merits, the instant criminal appeal was disposed of.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 398 of 2020, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Arvind Kumar Verma J.), decided 09.04.2025: Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC by Murli @ Mukesh Yadav against conviction under Section 307 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (default: two months additional RI) imposed on 07.02.2020 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Juvenile Court, Durg in Special Juvenile Session Trial No. 02/2020 (Crime No. 554/2016, P.S. Pulgaon). No one appeared for the appellant; Mr. Krishna Tandon was nominated from the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, and in view of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, the Court held adjournment and fresh notice unnecessary. On the jail report confirming that the appellant had already undergone the sentence, deposited the fine and been released, and with counsel not pressing the appeal on merits (taking note of the dictum in Suresh Singh and Another v. State of Haryana, (2007) 13 SCC 518, para 12 of which was reproduced), the Court disposed of the criminal appeal and ordered the Jail Superintendent's written instructions to be kept on record.

2025:CGHC:16795

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 398 of 2020

¶6

Murli @ Mukesh Yadav S/o Late Ramadhar Yadav, Aged About 18 Years R/o Purani Basti, Junwani Ward No. 1 Bhilai Chowk, Jevra- Sirsa, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

		... Respondent
For Appellant	: Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel lawyer

¶11

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

09/04/2025

¶14

1. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court.

¶15

1. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate, Mr. Krishna Tandon through the High Court Legal Services Committee and Learned State Counsel. In view of (2014) 14 SCC 222 (Surya Baksh Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh), I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant as his interest has been

¶16

¶17

duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶18

1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the CrPC’) questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Juvenile Court, Durg Chhattisgarh in Special Juvenile Session Trial No. 02/2020 in Crime No. 554/2016 registered in police station Pulgaon District Durg Chhattisgarh whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount two months additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶19

1. When the case is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court has already been completed and fine amount has already been deposited. He further submits that the appellant ha already been released from jail, as such, instant criminal appeal be disposed of accordingly,

¶20

1. Learned State counsel submitted a report received from the Office of Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh and would submit that the appellant has already completed his jail sentence awarded to him by the trial court and has been released from jail. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the dictum rendered by Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Suresh Singh and Another V. State of Haryana reported in (2007) 13 SCC 518.

¶21

¶22

Paragraph -12 of the said judgment is relevant for the purpose, which is reproduced below for easy reference:-

¶23

“12. It appears that thereafter on 22.01.2007, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1497 was filed wherein it was stated that Devender Singh (Accused 1) had expired. Death certificate was also produced along with the application. It was further stated that Jai Bhagwan (Accused 2), Jai Pal (Accused 4) and Shamsher Singh (Accused 5) be permitted to withdraw from special leave petition since all the three had already undergone the sentence and special leave on their behalf had become infructuous. The said application was allowed by the Court and the prayer was granted. Thus, out of the six accused only two have remained viz. Suresh Singh, Appellant 1 (Accused 3) and Jagbir Singh, Appellant 2 (Accused No. 06).”

¶24

1. Since the appellant has already completed his jail sentence as also deposited the fine amount and has been released from jail and learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press this appeal on merits, instant criminal appeal is disposed of.

¶25

1. Let the written instructions received from the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, District Durg (C.G.) be kept on record.

sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

JUDGE

alfiza

Murli @ Mukesh Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murli @ Mukesh Yadav v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjan Kumar Bhoi @ Aishwarya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jeet Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sushant Mistri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vishal Tharvani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lallu Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh