The High Court Of Patna Set aside the Judgement passed by The Trail Court under sections 302/34 of ipc as the prosecution failed to prove their case

TITLE- Rishi Mandal VS The State of Bihar with Subhash Singh VS State Of Bihar 

DECIDED ON -16/10/2023

+CR.APPNo.636/2016

CORAM-Honorable Justice Mr.sudhir singh and hon’ble Justice Mr.chandra Prakash Singh

INTRODUCTION

As both the criminal appeals arises out of common Judgement of conviction therefore to be heard together.As The appellant has filed appeals against the common Judgement of conviction on 29/04/2016 and the order of sentence dated on 03/05/2016 passed by lst additional district and sessions judge Bhagalpur in sessions trial convicted under section 302/34 of IPC and have to go for life imprisonment with fine where court after hearing on the basis of the learned councel appearing for the parties were both the appeal is been stand allowed and the trail judgement is been setaside.

FACTS

As per the facts from the prosecution case, FIR has been registered by the informant under section 302,307/34 of IPC for hitting the deceased wife of informant by the Gun Butt thrown in the floor then hitting pago Devi one of the deceased who got hit by handle of handpump by the appellant Rishi mandal then third occurance was place in the roof of the deceased Mahadeo Mahto shot by gun and on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant case was registered under the above section where after the investigation the investigation officer charge sheet under 302/34 of IPC and section 24 of the Arms act.During the trial the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses whereas defence has not produced any oral or documentary evidence and after the conclusion of the trial the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as above.Whereas the learned councels for the appellants submit that the judgement of conviction suffers from several infirmities that were overlooked by the learned trial court.Therefore the impunged Judgement is not sustainable in the eye of the law and prosecution miserably failed to prove both the place and occurance.Material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the prosecutions case.Therefore argued that there is a significant gaps in the prosecution case and the finding of the learned trial court are legally flawed, incorrect in terms of facts,lacking in legal reasoning and devoid of merit,the judgement of conviction fit to be set aside.Whereas The Learned APP for the state that guilt of the appellants has been satisfactorily proved by the evidence adduced during the course of trial and there is no infirmity in the judgement of conviction of the learned trial court.

THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION 

As the Court after hearing both the learned councel, appearing for the parties and through examination of materials available on the records following issues arises from the present appeals ,the Hon’ble court find that the legal position and on the basis of the finding arrived at on the issue above the conviction of the appellant in all the appeals is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and bothe the criminal appeals stand allowed and the judgement of conviction and order passed by the 1st additional district and sessions judge Bhagalpur in sessions trial arising out of case are set aside and the appellants are in jail custody are directed to released from custody.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by -Prachee Novo Mukherjee

Click here to view the full judgement

 

The High Court of Patna for the Judgement of the Petition placed to maintain A Judicial Discipline and to resolve the issue conflicting between the two Judgement

TITLE-Munna Singh VS The State OF Bihar &ors

DECIDED ON- 24/11/2023

+CR.WJC No 722/2023

CORAM- Hon’ble Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

INTRODUCTION

The petition questions the legality and validity of the decision taken by the state sentence remission Board on 9/9/2022 in respect of the petitioner.as the impugned order passed by the board has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner on the ground the case covered under clause (iv)(ka) of the notification No.3106 dated on 10/12/2002 issued by the Home Department Government of Bihar and also praying for commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for premature release.

FACTS

As per the facts of the case the petitioner has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions judge -lll in sessions trial for the offence under section 364A/34 of IPC has been order to go life imprisonment with fine and also was convicted and sentenced under section 365 IPC and go rigorous imprisonment for seven years and both are sentenced to run concurrently.As per the petitioner the notification no.3106 was issued in 10/12/2002 and published the Gazette on 28/12/2002 and the respondent authorities kept following the 1984 policy.The learned counsel for petitioner state that an application was submitted before the competent authority for considering his case for premature release.The Superintendent of police as well as presiding judge of the trial court recommended the case of petitioner for premature release.After obtaining necessary recommendation from the prescribed authorities the jail superintendent sent proposal to the board for consideration of the case for petitioner premature release in sessions trial.The learned counsel submits clause (iv)(ka) of the notification 3106 dated 10/12/2002 even if applied the case of petitioner would not be covered and also state that the categories of convicts covered under section 433A of Crpc has benn amended which brought certain exception list .The Board has not at all looked into Rule of 481 of the Bihar Prison Manual 2012 and also not followed the mandate of Rule 478 of the prison manual provide the paramount consideration being the welfare of the society at large,the board shall not ordinarily decline a premature release of a prisoner as in the present case the board has not applied it’s independent mind and the judicial pronouncement which were available to the board at the time of taking the impugned order.The submission is that by virtue of the amended Rule 481 there is no scope at all for the board to bring the present case within the ambit of clause (iv)(ka) of the notification dated 10/12/2002.Whereas per the Respondent the offence of kidnapping for ranson is as heinous as the offence of rape, Dacoity, terrorist,crime and for this reason the board has rejected the proposal for premature release of the petitioner and also state that the date of conviction of the petitioner is 17/09/2008 were case would come within the purview of notification no.3106 dated 10/12/2002.

THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

As per the Hon’ble court after hearing both the side of learned counsel for the parties the court state that there was no scope for the board to bring any other offence within the ambit of Rule 482 of the Prison Manual or clause (iv)(ka) of notification No.3106 and also finds that the board has not at all followed the precedents and petitioner seems to have fallen victim to the discriminatory approach on the part of the Board.Rule 478 and 481 of the prison Manual.As the present situation reminds the court the principal of law which may be per incuriam but earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue in case it is felt that earlier decision is not correct on merit and it is crystal clear that the learned coordinate bench has taken different view on the issue of applicability of clause (iv) of the notification No.3106 dated on 10/12/2002 and in order to maintain a Judicial discipline and to resolve the issue rather than to leave two conflicting Judgements to operate creating uncertainties it would be only appropriate to get the issue decided by a large Bench and the records be placed before Hon’ble the chief justice for appropriate direction.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Written by -Prachee Novo Mukherjee

Click here to view the full judgement

 

A False Plea ID being raised in the Writ Petition with Mala Fide Intention of Obtaining Favourable Is A Deprecated -High Court Of Patna

TITLE-Sugandhi Kumari VS The State Of Bihar

DECIDED ON-10/10/2023

+L.P.A No.533/2021

CORAM-Hon’ble The chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Mr.raajiv roy

INTRODUCTION

As the present appeal has been preferred gir setting aside the order and Judgement passed by single judge CWJC No.1187/2020 by which the petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed

FACTS

As per the fact of the case appellant was a PDS dealer at Village Kubeya in the District of East Champaran.Vide notice contain memo no.375 issued under the signature of respondent sub divisional officers east champaran by which Appellant was directed to file within a period of three days.It has been indicated that the copy of the enquiry report has been enclosed but not provided to the petitioner. As petitioner prays to exonerate her from all the charges as due to illness she could not maintain the uptodate register.As memo no.386 on ,13/10/2018 passed by Respondent no.3 and On 22/10/2018 the appellant submitted the reply reiterating her earlier version.The case of the appellant before the writ court was not proper opportunity was given to her before the order for cancellation of PDS license was passed.The second submission was not beneficiary and the document submitted by her was not at all considered and order need tm interference.Whereas per the learned councel for Respondent where state that in the inspection of the shop number of irregularities were found and she was put in notice and found her without any merit as it was rejected on 9/10/2018 and other opportunity was granted on 13/10/2018 to fuke her second show cause submitted on 22/10/2018 .Therefore following the direction of the Patna High court The appellant preferred appeal before the collector who after going through the facts of the case and order of the sub division officer chose not to interfere with the order and reject the same.

THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court after hearing both the learned parties and perused the order passed by the Hon’ble single judge The court has taken note of each and every fact of the case and came to the conclusion that in her show cause filed on 08/10/2018 and 22/10/2018 non supply of enquiry report was never agitated and can be safely conclude that a false plea is being raised in the writ petition with mala fide intention of obtaining favourable orde which was also depreciated.The court taken note of the fact that the respondents have opportunity to the appellant before arriving at a conclusion for cancellation of the PDS license.The writ Court thus rightly chose not to interfere with the order dated passed by the SDO as well as The District Magistrate and court donot find any reason to interfere with the order of the writ court .The appeal is been Dismissed.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Written by -Prachee Novo Mukherjee

Click here to view the full judgement