Dismissed

Niramala Bai v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC6 Jan 2018CRLA/402/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the criminal appeal. The appellant, convicted of an offence under section 304 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, had already served nearly 9 years and was released on remission. The court found no merit in the appeal and declared it infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed and no case for interference in the impugned order. Record sent back.

Niramala Bai Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 402 / 2013

¶3

Niramala Bai wife of Prahlad by caste Bairwa resident of Naya Ghaon Devpura, P.S. Khanpur, District Jhalawar

¶4

(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Jhalawar)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through P P

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr Pradeep Choudhary

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr Sudesh Saini, PP

¶11

Mr Pankaj Sisodiya, Asstt Govt Advocate

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Judgment

¶13

06/01/2018

¶14

Heard. The appeal is admitted.

¶15

Pursuant to direction of this court, status report has been brought by learned PP. It shows that the accused appellant has already been released from jail after extending benefit of remission and otherwise she has served the sentence of almost 9 years. She was convicted for offence under section 304 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The prayer of learned PP is to render the appeal as infructuous in view of release of the appellant as otherwise there is no merit in the appeal.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLA-402/2013]

¶18

Learned Amicus Curiae Mr Pradeed Choudary has

¶19

contested the case but he could not deny the fact of release of the appellant after taking benefit of remission in view of the certificate given by the jail authority.

¶20

I find that not only accused appellant has already been released after serving the sentence after taking benefit of remission but I find no merit in the appeal. Learned trial court has discussed the evidence led by the parties and found that offence under section 302 IPC is not made out but accused appellant caused offence for offence under section 304 IPC. The theory propounded by the appellant against Barjya for causing offence was not found true. Taking over all facts of the case and as the accused appellant has already been released after serving the sentence, I do not find that a case is made out to cause interference in the impugned order passed by learned trial court. Detailed discussions are not made as I do not find any perversity in the judgment impugned herein and otherwise appellant has already been released from jail after serving the sentence.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶22

The record be sent back.

¶23

(M.N. BHANDARI)J.

¶24

bnsharma

Niramala Bai v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niramala Bai v. State of Rajasthan through P P

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

Mohd Imran Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Swastik Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs J v v N Ltd.

Pawan Kumar Vs Smt Anju Patni

Mohammad Tufel@Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ram Kishore Meena Vs Smt Chanda Devi and Anr. Thr Lrs