Dismissed

Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Jan 2013CR. REV./670/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition was dismissed. The High Court found no illegality in the Additional Sessions Judge's order that set aside the conviction of petitioners 2 to 5, who were acquitted based on a lack of involvement in the case diary for offenses under multiple IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision petition stands dismissed. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the conviction of respondent nos. 2 to 5 is maintained.

Shanti Devi Vs State of Bihar and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.670 of 2009

¶2

===================================================== Shanti Devi, wife of Bindeshwar Singh, resident of village-Laskariya (Salera), P.S. Jainagar, District-Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ram Darash Roy, son of Ram Dayal Roy. 3. Sanjay Roy, son of late Shiv Dayal Roy. 4. Jageshwear Yadav, son of Keshwar Yadav. 5. Ram Udgar Yadav @ Tuntun Yadav, son of Ram Lakhan Yadav. All resident of village-Aurahi, P.S. Babubarhi, DistrictMadhubani. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s. Ajay Kumar Thakur and Amit Kumar, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For the O.P. Nos.2 : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate. to 5 ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER -----------

¶3

4 17-01-2013 Heard the parties.

¶4

This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 7.1.2009 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Madhubani, in Criminal Revision No.456 of 2008, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtIV, Madhubani, set aside the order dated 9.6.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in G.R. Case No.166 of 2006, arising out of Babubarhi P.S. Case No.9 of 2006, taking cognizance of the offence against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364, 302 and 120(B) of

¶5

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.670 of 2009 (4) dt.17-01-2013

¶6

2 / 2

¶7

the Indian Penal Code.

¶8

On going through the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Madhubani, detailing the paragraphs of the case diary, arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing in the case diary to show the involvement of the opposite party nos.2 to 5 in the commission of the alleged offence.

¶9

I find no illegality in the impugned order for interference with the same in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed.

¶10

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

¶11

P.S./-

Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Devi v. State of Bihar 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

Sumit Kumar @ Sujit Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Miraj Ansari @ Kittu Vs The State Of Bihar

Sudhir Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Vipi Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Bibi Rani Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.