Dismissed

Suresh Kumar Soren v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2024Cr.Rev./1410/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the petitioner challenged the lower court's order taking cognizance under offences other than attempted murder. The High Court noted the State's lack of objection to delay condonation. On merits, it found no perversity in the lower court's decision as the petitioner failed to substantiate medical injury reports in his solemn affirmation, thus dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in the interlocutory application for 114 days granted; Criminal Revision No. 1410 of 2019 dismissed.

Suresh Kumar Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Revision No. 1410 of 2019

¶3

With

¶4

I.A. No. 11605 of 2019

¶5

Suresh Kumar Soren, aged about 32 years son of Late Tika Ram Soren, resident of Village Dalpani, P.O. Mango, P.S. MGM (Mango), Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

2 Surjo Soren, son of Sri Ram Chandra Soren.

¶8

3 Bangali Soren, son of Late Gurwa Soren.

¶9

4 Wariar Soren, son of Late Medhrai Soren

¶10

5 Chikar Mardi, son of Late Khonda Mardi.

¶11

Hopna Soren, son of Late Uday Soren.

¶12

7 Toko Soren, son of Late Khopa Soren.

¶13

Khela Ram Soren, son of Late Chandramohan Soren.

¶14

Sindhu Soren, son of Late Lakhan Soren.

¶15

SI. Nos. 2 to 9 all are resident of Village Dalapani, P.O. Mango,. P.S. MGM (Mango), Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

¶16

… … Opp. Parties ---

¶17

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶18

--For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Karmakar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, APP

¶19

¶20

05 18.09.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I.A. No. 11605 of 2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 114 days in preferring this revision petition.

¶22

3. The learned counsel submits that the ground shown in the petition for condonation of delay is the financial crisis of the petitioner.

¶23

4. So far as codonation of delay is concerned, the learned counsel for the opposite party has no serious objection.

¶24

5. Being satisfied with the cause shown in the interlocutory application, the delay of 114 days in preferring this criminal revision is hereby condoned.

¶25

6. I.A. No. 11605 of 2019 stands disposed of.

¶26

Cr. Revision No. 1410 of 2019

¶27

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the complaint petition and the impugned order dated 2.4.2019 has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that cognizance under Section 307 IPC has not been taken by the court concerned. He submits that there is an allegation that the accused person namely Khela Ram Soren, opposite party No. 8 had pressed the neck of the complainant and when the complainant shouted, she could be rescued. He submits that there is an allegation that he pressed the neck of the complainant to kill her. He submits that other enquiry witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. He submits that prima facie case under Section 307 of IPC is made out and therefore the impugned order whereby cognizance has been taken only under Sections 323,379, 506 and 324 of IPC calls for interference in as much as the learned Court ought to have taken cognizance under Section 307/511 of the IPC.

¶28

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the complainant has not even fully supported the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the complainant has not produced any injury report nor the complainant has stated that she ever consulted the doctor in his solemn affirmation although such statement has been made in paragraph 13 of the complaint petition. He submits that cognizance has been taken also under Section 324 of IPC and no prima facie case under Section 307 is made out.

¶29

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of this case and the evidence of the enquiry witnesses, this court finds that although a statement has been made by the petitioner that the complainant consulted a doctor for relief of pain, but no such statement has been made in his solemn affirmation nor any injury report has been exhibited. This court finds that the learned court was satisfied only with regards to prima-facie case having been made, interalia, under section 324 of IPC upon application of mind and there is no perversity in the impugned order in

¶30

¶31

Binit

¶32

not taking cognizance under section 307 of IPC, calling for any interference in revisional jurisdiction by this court.

¶33

10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the order impugned taking cognizance only under Section 323,379,506 and 324 IPC does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed.

¶34

11. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.

¶35

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

¶36

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶37

Suresh Kumar Soren v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Soren v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Manoj Kumar Vs Central Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Deo Nandan Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand through Director General-Cum-Inspector General of Police

Arjun Kumar Vs Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd.

Md Alam Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Dinesh Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gopeshwar Singh Alias Gopi Vs the State of Jharkhand