Dismissed

Niwaran Hansda And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2020Cr.Rev./913/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition finding no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' judgment. However, it granted two months' time to the petitioners to comply with the lower appellate court's order to furnish a bond.

What did the court decide?

Two months' time granted to comply with the lower appellate court's order to furnish a bond.

Niwaran Hansda And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 913 of 2008

¶4

Niwaran Hansda

¶5

Bharat Hansda

¶6

Both sons of Late Mahadeo Hansda

¶7

Pami Hansda widow of Late Mahadeo Hansda

¶8

Rasmani Hansda w/o Bharat Hansda

¶9

Lakhimuni Hansda w/o Niwaran Hansda All residents of village Bardohi tola Kari-tarn P.O. Bardohi P.S. Govindpur and District Dhanbad

¶10

… … … Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

Bhimlal Manjhi son of late Murti Manjhi resident of VillageBardohi, P.O. Bardohi, P.S. Govindpur and District Dhanbad

¶14

… … Opp. Parties

¶15

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶17

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, Advocate

¶18

¶19

5/07.01.2020

¶20

Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶21

Heard Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

¶22

The present application is directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2005 dismissing the appeal with modification of sentence from imprisonment to execution of bond of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping good behaviour for a period of two years and thereby confirming the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1319/1998 convicting the petitioners under Sections 143/447/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, one month, 6 months and one

¶23

¶24

year respectively.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of argument has submitted that the learned lower appellate court as well as learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidences on record. Accordingly, the petitioners were wrongfully convicted under the aforesaid Sections. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the lower appellate court had modified the sentence and the petitioners were ordered to furnish bond for keeping good behaviour for a period of two years. He submits that if this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, then some time may be extended for compliance of the order passed by the learned lower appellate court.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State while opposing the prayer submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments and orders which requires interference under revisional jurisdiction by this court. She submits that the lower appellate court has given some relief to the petitioners and has only asked to furnish bond and accordingly the impugned orders may not be interfered with.

¶27

After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, counsel for the petitioners is not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below. However considering the fact that the learned lower appellate court had only asked the petitioners to furnish bond of Rs. 5,000/- for keeping good behaviour for a period of two years and had modified the sentence, this court, although finds no merit in this revision, grants two months’ time to comply with the order passed by the learned lower appellate court. If the order of the learned appellate court is not complied by the

¶28

¶29

petitioners, within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of this order and receipt of the lower court records, the learned court below will take appropriate steps against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶30

This petition is dismissed with aforesaid observation.

¶31

Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed as not pressed.

¶32

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶33

10.Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX.

¶34

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶35

Binit/

Niwaran Hansda And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niwaran Hansda And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

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

Union of India Vs Shri Lakshman Singh

Prafulla Ranjan Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand Th.Cbi

M/S Rajat Fuel Product Corporation through Its Pro Vs Union of India And Anr.

Central Coalfields Limited Vs the Union of India And Ors.

Central Coalfields Limited Vs Union of India And Ors.

Central Coalfields Limited Vs Union of India And Ors.