Dismissed

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jumuna Kumar Bhuiya v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC27 Mar 2019Acq. App./30/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an acquittal appeal and an application for condonation of delay due to lack of merit and bar by limitation. The Trial Court had acquitted accused persons under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC as no witnesses were produced by the prosecution despite efforts.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 590 of 2018 dismissed; Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2018 dismissed; Acquittal appeal dismissed.

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 30 of 2017

with

I.A. No. 590 of 2018

with

Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2018

¶7

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan

¶8

@ Jamuna Bhuiyan @ Jumuna Kumar Bhuiya

¶9

….. ….. Appellant / Petitioner (In both matters)

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand

¶12

Manoj Turi

¶13

Chavi Kumar Raut

¶14

Chandan Bhuiya @ Chandan Kumar Bhuiya

¶15

Sunita Devi ….. …. Respondents (In both matters)

¶16

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶17

For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, A.P.P. --------

¶18

6/ 27.03.2019. Heard learned counsel for the informant appellant and learned counsel for the State.

¶19

The informant appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 20^th June 2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2015, whereby, accused respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who were facing the trial for the offences under Sections 302, 201 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted by the Trial Court below, in absence of any evidence.

¶20

Being aggrieved, this acquittal appeal has been filed by the informant after a delay of 42 days, and as such, I.A. No. 590 of 2018 has been filed for condonation of this delay. Cr. M.P. No. 257 of 2018 has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal.

¶21

The impugned Judgment shows that the police case was instituted against unknown, after the dead body of the brother of the informant was found. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

¶22

The impugned Judgment shows that in course of trial, charge was framed against the accused respondents on 27.7.2013. In spite of all efforts taken by the Trial Court below, only the Doctor, conducting the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, could

¶23

-2-

¶24

be examined by the prosecution, and no other witness was produced by the prosecution in spite of all efforts taken by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the prosecution case was closed on 6.6.2017, and the Judgment of acquittal was passed by the Trial Court below.

¶25

The impugned Judgment also shows that the prosecution evidence was closed due to non-production of any witness, in spite of the steps taken by the Trial Court below. One of the accused was in custody, and the private witnesses were not appearing to support the prosecution case, in spite of having the knowledge about the trial, as appeared from the service reports of the warrants issued against them. On 8.5.2017, last opportunity was granted to the prosecution to produce the witnesses, and the prosecution evidence was closed on 6.6.2017, when no witness was produced in spite of the last opportunity given. As such, we do not find any inherent or patent illegality / irregularity in the impugned Judgment, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid discussions, no useful purpose is going to be served by condoning of delay in filing the appeal. As such, I.A. No. 590 of 2018 stands dismissed.

¶27

Since there is no merit in this appeal, no question arises for granting any leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal. As such, Cr.M.P. No. 257 of 2018 also stands dismissed.

¶28

Consequently, this acquittal appeal also stands dismissed being barred by limitation and bereft of any merit.

¶29

( H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶30

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶31

R.Kr.

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jumuna Kumar Bhuiya v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jumuna Kumar Bhuiya v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand

Shahid Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Taslim Khan And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Bahadur Rai Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Ravidas Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Kumar Bhuiya Vs the State of Jhakhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Kamal Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand

Shahid Khan Vs State of Jharkhand

Taslim Khan And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Bahadur Rai Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Suresh Ravidas  Ram Vs State of Jharkhand

Jamuna Kumar Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Bhuiyan Alias Jamuna Kumar Bhuiya Vs the State of Jhakhand

Suresh Ravidas Ram Vs State of Jharkhand