Partly allowed

Suresh Bouri And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Dec 2019Cr.A(SJ)/113/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside convictions under sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC as the incident was a mutual fight without common object. The trial court's acquittal of appellant 4 (deceased) was noted. Convictions for individual assaults under sections 323 and 324 were upheld with sentence modifications for remaining appellants.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC set aside; convictions under Sections 323 and 324 upheld; sentences reduced and fines enhanced for remaining appellants.

Suresh Bouri And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 113 of 2007

¶4

Suresh Bauri

¶5

Naresh Bauri

¶6

Hira Bauri

¶7

Ashu Bauri (expired on 19.03.2013 and ordered to be deleted vide order dated 04.04.2019)

¶8

Ramesh Bauri … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opp. Party

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Appellants : Mr. K. K. Ojha, Advocate Ms. Nisha Srivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, A.P.P.

¶10

¶11

18 /04.12.2019 Heard Mr. K. K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants alongwith Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.12.2006 passed in S.T. Case No. 77 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 815 of 2000 arising out of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 73 of 2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro whereby and whereunder the learned Judge was pleased to convict all the appellants under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 147, 148 of I.P.C. and was pleased to sentence them to undergo two years of S.I. and fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Sections 324/149 I.P.C. and in default in payment of fine, to further undergo one month S.I. and further sentenced them to undergo two years S.I. and fine of Rs. 3,000/under Section 148 of I.P.C. and in default in payment of fine, to undergo one month S.I.. No separate sentence was passed

¶13

¶14

under Sections 323/149 and 147 of I.P.C.. It was also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶15

4. As per report received from learned District Additional Session Judge-1^st –cum-Special Judge, Bokaro contained in Letter No. 319/2019 dated 27.02.2019 as contained in Flag ‘A’ in the record, the Appellant No. 4 (Ashu Bauri) has expired on 19.03.2013. As per order dated 04.04.2019 passed in this case, the counsel for the appellants was directed to take steps for expunging the name of Appellant No. 4 from memo of criminal appeal.

¶16

5. Counsel for the appellants prays for and is permitted to delete the name of Appellant No. 4 from the cause-title in red ink during the course of the day. Accordingly, this appeal stands abated so far as Appellant No. 4 is concerned. Arguments on behalf of the appellants

¶17

6. Counsel for the appellants, while advancing his argument, submits that from the evidences available on record, it is clear that the P.W.- 6 and P.W.- 7, who are independent witnesses, had come to the place of occurrence at the instance of the Appellant No. 1 for the purposes of measurement of land and the Appellant No. 1 himself had suffered injuries in the sudden free fight which had taken place between the two parties. P.W.- 6 has not stated that any fight was started at the instance of the present appellants and he has stated that it was Appellant No. 1, who was injured in the fight. So far as the P.W.- 7 is concerned, he has stated that the Appellant No. 1 as well as P.W.- 5 were injured in the occurrence, although he has not stated that who had hit P.W.- 5.

¶18

7. The counsel for the appellants further submits that there is no dispute that there was case and counter-case between the parties and also that the incident had taken place on account of the fact that the Appellant No. 1 had brought P.W.- 6 and P.W.-

¶19

¶20

7 on the place of occurrence for the purposes of measurement of land and the informant party had resisted, which ultimately led to sudden free fight between the parties. He further submits that it is not in dispute that both the parties had suffered injuries.

¶21

8. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in AIR 1971 SC 335 and he has referred to Para-2 of the said judgment to submit that in the said case also, a fight had occurred on account of rivalry between the parties and it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-4 of the said judgment that in the mutual fight, there is no common object and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a case of mutual fight, Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted.

¶22

9. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the entire fight had taken place at the spur of the moment and accordingly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the conviction by resorting to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

¶23

10. The learned counsel further submits that on account of the version of the independent witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence, no case is made out against the appellants. The learned counsel also submits that the learned court below has not properly considered the evidence of P.W.- 6 and P.W.- 7 and has wrongfully convicted the appellants under the aforesaid sections.

¶24

11. The learned counsel for the appellants then submits that the entire incident shows that it was the persons from the informant party who were the aggressors and considering the injury report and the evidences, at best conviction of the Appellant No. 2 can be sustained under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the Appellant No. 2

¶25

¶26

has remained in custody for the period from 31.07.2000 to 30.09.2000 and has also been imposed fine.

¶27

12. The learned counsel also submits that considering the fact that the First Information Report in the present case is of the year 2000 and long time has elapsed, this Court may consider the aforesaid circumstances to confine the conviction of the Appellant No. 2 to the period already undergone and if considered proper, the fine amount may be increased. The learned counsel also submits that since there was no common object to commit any offence, therefore, there was no unlawful assembly and accordingly, the ingredients of Sections 147, 148 and 149 are totally absent in the present case.

¶28

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

¶29

13. Counsel for the opposite party-State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the appellants, has submitted that so far as the Appellant No. 2 is concerned, there is consistent evidence that he had hit the P.W.-5, who suffered injuries, though simple in nature. He further submits that the nature of injury and the manner of incident is exactly tallying with that of the medical evidence of the doctor and accordingly, there can be no doubt that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the Appellant No. 2 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

14. So far as the other Sections are concerned, the learned counsel for the State is not in a position to dispute that the P.W.6 and 7 have not supported the prosecution version of the case and that they were the independent witnesses to the occurrence and have given reasons to visit the place of occurrence i.e. for measurement of land at the instance of the Appellant No. 2. However, he submits that so far as the P.W.- 7 is concerned, he has stated that the informant ( P.W.-5) was injured, though he could not say as to who had caused injury to P.W.-5 . He further

¶31

¶32

submits that if this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of Appellant No. 2, then the fine amount may be enhanced at least to Rs. 15,000/- which may be remitted to the P.W.-5. He also does not dispute the fact that the appellants have remained in custody for a period from 31.07.2000 to 30.09.2000. Findings of this court

¶33

15. As per the case of the prosecution, the F.I.R. was instituted on the basis of Fard-beyan of informant Nemai Bauri (P.W.- 5). The prosecution story is that the informant alongwith his father P.W.-1 and brother P.W.- 3 were preparing their field by Kudal (axe) on 29.07.2000, when at about 3.00 p.m. the accused persons armed with lathi, knife and farsa appeared there, dissuading them from digging the field claiming it to be their own. When resisted, the accused persons became furious and at the instance of the accused Sripati Bauri (since deceased), they all mounted attack on the informant party causing several injuries to the informant (P.W.- 5), father (P.W.-1) and brothers (P.Ws.-2 and 3). The F.I.R. was registered as Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 73 of 2000 dated 29.07.2000. Investigation was carried out. The injured ones were given medical treatment and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons including Sripati Bauri (since deceased) and Ashu Bauri (deceased). Thereafter, cognizance of offence was taken and the accused persons were charged under Sections 307/149, 147/148, 323/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and on pleading of not guilty to the charges and denial thereof, they were put for trial and ultimately convicted. 16. The prosecution in this case has examined a total of nine witnesses i.e. P.W.-1- Abhilash Bauri (father of the informant), P.W.-2-Mantu Bauri, P.W.-3 Sahin Bauri (Both brothers of the informant ), P.W.- 4 Puran Bauri (uncle of the informant), P.W.5– Informant namely, Nemai Bauri, P.W.-6- Shanti Ram Mahto

¶34

¶35

(Sarpanch), P.W.-7–Kagen Mahto (Amin), P.W.-8 Madan Mohan Mishra (I.O.) and P.W.-9-Dr. R. N. Sinha, who had examined the injured persons. Before the learned court below, no defence witness as such was produced. Exhibit-1 is the fardbeyan of the informant. Exhibit-2 is the injury report which contains the examination of the injured i.e. P.Ws.-2 and 5.

¶36

17. Before the learned court below, the defence side has also cited conviction of the informant side vide judgment passed in G.R. Case No. 816 of 2000 on 13.05.2004 by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bokaro. Certified copy of the judgment has been marked as Exhibit-A, certified copy of cross P.S. Case No. 74 of 2000 has been marked as Exhibit-B. Certified copy of the charge-sheet of cross P.S. Case has been marked as Exhibit-C and certified copy of the order dated 06.07.2005 has been marked as Exhibit-D showing the fact that the Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2004 has been dismissed against the informant of the present case by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro.

¶37

18. P.W.- 5 is the informant of the case . He has stated that the date of occurrence is 29.07.2000 and when he was digging the Goda field with his father and three brothers, the accused persons all armed with lathi, knife and farsa came and tried to dissuade them from digging the field. On protest, they became furious and at the command of the accused Sripati Bauri (since deceased), they all attacked the informant side. He has specifically stated that Naresh Bauri (Appellant No. 2 herein) was carrying knife and assaulted him at left scapula and at the back. He has also stated that his father and brothers were also assaulted by lathi. This witness has identified the accused who were present in the Court and has also claimed that he can identify all the accused persons.

¶38

P.W.-1 is the father of the informant. He has also given the same version as that of the informant and has also stated that Sripati

¶39

¶40

Bauri (since deceased) had given lathi blow to his son i.e. P.W.5 and Naresh Bauri had given knife blow to P.W.-5 on his back and abdomen. He has also stated that he was assaulted by Ashu Bauri and Ramesh Bauri. He has further stated that injured P.W.-5 was taken to local police station and from there he was referred for treatment to Purulia Sadar Hospital.

¶41

P.W.-2 is the brother of the informant. He has stated that on the day of occurrence, when they were preparing the field for sowing paddy seeds, all the accused persons carrying lathi, farsa and knife surrounded them claiming the land to be their own and on protest Sripati Bauri abetted them for assaulting whereupon Naresh Bauri gave knife blow to P.W.-5 (Nemai Bauri) on his back and abdomen near panjra i.e. scapula. He also says that he too was assaulted by Ashu Bauri and Ramesh Bauri. In Para-5, P.W.- 2 further states that the injured brother P.W.-5 was taken to local P.S. and from there he was referred for treatment to Purulia Sadar Hospital.

¶42

P.W.-3 is Sahin Bauri who is another brother of the informant. He has also supported the prosecution case and has clearly stated in his evidence that he had seen Naresh Bauri while giving knife blow to his brother Nemai Bauri (P.W-5-nformant) who sustained injury and was taken to the hospital. He has also described the knife used for the commission of the offence.

¶43

So far as the evidence of P.W.- 4 is concerned, this Court finds that the said witness is a hearsay witness and he arrived at the place of occurrence after the incident. He has simply stated that upon coming to know about the incident, he came to the place of occurrence and he saw that the people were fighting. He has also stated that Nemai Bauri i.e. P.W.-5-informant was injured and he helped him to be taken to the hospital for his treatment.

¶44

¶45

P.W.- 6 is Shanti Ram Mahto who is the Sarpanch of the village. He has stated that the Appellant No. 1 had called him and had taken him to the place of occurrence for the purposes of measurement of land. He has stated that he had no idea that there was land dispute. He has also stated that Nemai Bauri, Abhilash Bauri and son of Abhilash Bauri, who were the informant party, had stopped the Appellant No. 1 from measuring the land and accordingly, there was fight between both the parties. During the fight, the informant of the present case had hit the Appellant No. 1 and both fell down. He has also stated that the Appellant No. 1 was hit by Kulhadi . He has further stated that the informant of the present case had told the Appellant No. 1 that he will not permit them to measure the land and Abhilash Bauri i.e. P.W.-1 had hit Suresh i.e. Appellant No. 1 on his head by Kulhadi which led to bleeding.

¶46

P.W.- 7 is also an independent witness, who is the Amin and he has also given the same version as that of P.W.- 6. He has stated that he went to the place of occurrence at the instance of the Appellant No. 1 for the purposes of measurement of land. He has stated that there was fight between the parties and the P.W.- 5 was injured. He has also stated that the Appellant No. 1 was also injured. He has further stated that he is not in a position to say that who had hit whom during the occurrence.

¶47

P.W.- 8 is the investigating officer of the case. He had exhibited the First Information Report and had also supported the prosecution case. He has given the description of the land on which the occurrence had taken place. He has also stated that the injured were sent to the doctor and the doctor had examined the injured and given the injury report. He has stated that when the informant came before him, he was wearing Dhoti which was having blood stain, but he did not seize the same as that was the only cloth which the informant was

¶48

¶49

wearing. He has also stated in his evidence that the informant did not tell him that Kagen Mahto had come on the property for the purposes of measurement of land. He has stated that the P.W.-1 is an accused in Cross P.S. Case No. 74 of 2000 and he has also mentioned that there is a counter case in connection with the same occurrence. This Court finds that the investigating officer, upon investigation, has fully supported the case of the prosecution, but it is not in dispute that the weapon was not recovered.

¶50

P.W.- 9 is the doctor, who had examined the two injured persons i.e. P.W.- 5 and P.W.- 2. He has opined that the injury found on the person of P.W.- 5 was simple in nature, although it was by sharp cutting weapon. The observations in the injury report with regard to P.W.- 5 are as under:

¶51

“Injury: (i) Cut injury measuring 1 ½” x 1” x ½” over L side of chest below 9^th costal cartilage by sharp cutting weapon. (ii) Cut injury measuring 2” x 1 ½” x ½” over R side of spine by side of 10^th & 11^th dorsal (Theorem) vertibrac by Sharp cutting

¶52

weapon

¶53

(iii) Abrasion 1”x1” area over R side of mid skull by hard blunt object.

¶54

Nature of injury:

¶55

(i) Simple

¶56

(ii) Simple

¶57

(iii) Simple.”

¶58

The injury report has been marked as Exhibit-3.

¶59

The doctor has also examined P.W.-2 and found the injury by hard and blunt substance. The description of the injury with regard to P.W.-2 is as follows:

¶60

“Injury :

¶61

(i) 1 ½” x ½” x ½” cut in left hand at base of thumb over palmer side by hard blunt object

¶62

¶63

(ii) Irregular swelling & tenderness above left elbow on outer arpeet by hard blunt object.

¶64

Nature of injury: (i) and (ii) – simple.”

¶65

19. This Court finds that P.W.-6 is the eye-witness to the occurrence and is an independent witness. P.W.-6 has also stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence at the instance of Suresh Bauri (Appellant No. 1) along with P.W.-7 for measurement of land, but the informant party did not allow such measurement and fight started between the parties and the Appellant No. 1 was hit in the course of the fight. He has stated that during the course of fight between the informant and Appellant No. 1, both fell down and Abhilash (P.W-1) hit Suresh (Appellant No. 1) with Kulhari on his head. He has also stated that he had no idea that land dispute was going on between the parties. P.W.-7 is also an independent witness, who is the Amin and has supported the version given by P.W.-6. He has stated that he went to the place of occurrence at the instance of the Appellant No. 1 for the purposes of measurement of land. He has stated that there was fight between the parties and the P.W.-5 was injured. He has also stated that the Appellant No. 1 was also injured. He has further stated that he is not in a position to say that who had hit whom during the occurrence.

¶66

20. Upon perusal of the evidences on record, this court finds that the learned court below has rightly come to a finding that it appears that old land rivalry has been a bone of contention between both sides. P.Ws.-6 and 7 have clearly stated that on the day of occurrence, when the defence side went to demarcate the surplus land out of the admitted 24 decimals of land of the present informant, the informant side did not abide by the direction of Sarpanch and Amin (P.Ws.-6 and 7 respectively) which ensued the altercation. The learned court below has rightly held that the bone of contention is that, accused persons

¶67

¶68

claim that the informant side has forcibly taken possession of surplus land of 6 decimals against the admitted 24 decimals land and hence, this issue was tried to be solved by calling Amin for demarcation of the land and hence, the altercation ensued between two sides.

¶69

21. The learned court below has rightly held that in the occurrence the accused side has also suffered injury at the hands of prosecution witnesses for which cross P.S. Case 74/2000 (G.R. No. 816/2000) was instituted against the informant side and the informant side has been convicted under Sections 323/341 of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 13.05.2004, C.C. of Exts.-A, B and C has been filed to support the above version.

¶70

22. Considering the evidences on record, this court finds that the learned court below has rightly held that the occurrence is of simultaneous assault in which both the parties suffered injuries.

¶71

23. However, the learned court below has wrongly come to a conclusion that it is also established from the above narration of facts that accused persons, in order to forcibly take possession of the surplus land of 4 decimals went to the place of occurrence land of 24 decimals, all armed with lathi, knife and farsa. This court is of the considered view that the fact that the Sarpanch as well as the Amin (i.e. P.W.-6 and 7) were called by the Appellant No. 1 for measurement of land and was resisted by the informant party established that the purpose of being on the place of occurrence by the accused was measurement and cannot be said that the same was for taking forcible possession. There is no evidence to the effect that there was any overt act on the part of the appellants to take forcible possession. The evidences on record establish that there was sudden and free

¶72

¶73

fight between the parties when the informant party did not permit measurement of land by the P.W.- 6 and 7.

¶74

24. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the judgment reported in AIR 1971 SC 335 (Munir Khan versus State of UP) , Para 4 that in a case of sudden and mutual fight, there is no common object and hence, a person cannot be convicted by resorting to section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

¶75

25. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the judgment reported in (1997) 11 SCC 564 (Anant Kathod Pawar versus State of Maharashtra) in Para-5 that once it is found that there was a sudden and free fight between the two groups in which members of both the groups sustained injuries, there is no scope for convicting members of one of those groups under Section 147 or 148 of I.P.C and for that matter for substantive offences with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. In such a case, the accused persons would be liable for their individual acts and would not be liable vicariously. It has also been held that in such circumstances, the accused can be made liable for their individual acts.

¶76

26. In the instant case, in view of the aforesaid findings by this court that there was sudden and free fight between the parties and both the parties have sustained injuries, the conviction and sentence of all the appellants under sections 147/148 of IPC cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly set-aside and this court further holds that Section 149 of IPC is not applicable in the instant case.

¶77

27. So far as individual acts of the appellants is concerned, P.W-5 has stated that Naresh Bauri (Appellant No. 2 herein) was carrying knife and assaulted him at left scapula and at the back. He has also stated that his father and brothers were also assaulted by lathi.

¶78

¶79

28. P.W-1 has stated that Sripati Bauri (since deceased) had given lathi blow to his son i.e. P.W.-5, whereupon Naresh Bauri gave knife blow to P.W.-5 on his back and abdomen. He has also stated that he was assaulted by Ashu Bauri and Ramesh Bauri.

¶80

P.W-2 has stated that Naresh Bauri gave knife blow to P.W.-5 (Nemai Bauri) on his back and abdomen near panjra i.e. scapula. He also said that he too was assaulted by Ashu Bauri and Ramesh Bauri.

¶81

P.W-3 has stated that Naresh Bauri had given knife blow to his brother Nemai Bauri (P.W-5-informant), who sustained injury.

¶82

P.W.-9 is the doctor, who had examined the two injured persons i.e. P.W.-5 and P.W.-2. He has opined that the injury found on the person of P.W.-5 was simple in nature, although it was by sharp cutting weapon. So far as injury upon P.W-2 is concerned he has opined that the injury was by hard and blunt substance and the injuries were simple.

¶83

29. This Court finds that there is consistent evidence that P.W-5 was assaulted by knife by the Appellant No. 2 which is also supported by the evidence of the doctor and the injury report of P.W-5. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned court below has rightly convicted the Appellant No. 2 under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, his conviction under Section 324 of Indian Penal code only is upheld and his conviction under the other sections of Indian Penal Code is hereby set-aside.

¶84

30. So far as the Appellant No. 5 is concerned, it has come in the evidence of P.W-2 that he was assaulted by Appellant No. 5. Appellant No. 5 was having lathi and the injury of the P.W-2 was simple and by hard and blunt substance as per the injury

¶85

¶86

report. In such circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that the offence under section 323 has been established against the Appellant No. 5 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, his conviction under section 323 of Indian Penal Code only is upheld and his conviction under the other Sections of Indian Penal Code is hereby set-aside.

¶87

31. So far as the Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, there is no overt act alleged against them and accordingly, their conviction by the learned trial court below is hereby set-aside and they are acquitted from all the charges.

¶88

On the point of sentence

¶89

32. So far as the sentence of the Appellant Nos.2 and 5 are concerned, this Court finds that the alleged offence is of the year 2000 and the date of conviction by the learned trial court below is 07.12.2006. The present appeal is of the year 2007. The Appellant Nos.2 and 5 have faced the rigours of the criminal case for a long time which arises out of land dispute between the parties leading to sudden and free fight in which persons from both the parties suffered injuries.

¶90

33. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Appellant No. 2 has remained in custody for a period from 31.07.2000 to 30.09.2000, the sentence of the Appellant No. 2 is hereby reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- to be deposited before the learned court below within three months from the date of communication of this judgment to the learned court below. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the bail bonds of the Appellant No. 2 will be immediately cancelled and the Appellant No.2 would serve the remaining sentence. If the aforesaid amount is deposited, the bail bonds furnished by the Appellant No. 2 will stand discharged. The fine amount is directed to be remitted to the

¶91

¶92

P.W-5 (victim) after due identification by the learned court below.

¶93

34. So far as the sentence of Appellant No. 5 is concerned, his sentence is hereby modified to fine amount of Rs. 1000/- only to be deposited before the learned court below within three months from the date of communication of this judgment to the learned court below. If the aforesaid amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the bail bonds of the Appellant No.5 will be immediately cancelled and the Appellant No.5 would serve the remaining sentence. If the aforesaid amount is deposited, the bail bonds furnished by the Appellant No. 5 will stand discharged. The fine amount is directed to be remitted to the P.W.-2 (victim) after due identification by the learned court below.

¶94

Conclusion

¶95

35. This criminal appeal, so far as the Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, the same is allowed and so far as the Appellant Nos. 2 and 5 are concerned, the same is partly allowed.

¶96

36. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.

¶97

37. The office is directed to immediately remit the records to the concerned court below.

¶98

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶99

Pankaj

Suresh Bouri And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Bouri And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuneshwar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nityanand Paul Alias Nityananda Paul Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Mister Alias Chottu Korwa Alias Shivji Korwa Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jawed Akhtar Vs State of Jharkhand through Indo Shekhar Chaturvedi

Satendra Kumar Das Alias Satyendra Kumar Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Ramjee Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand