…. 1. Mantoo Kapri Son of Adhik Lal Kapri, 2. Karu Kapri son of v. CORAM: HON'BLE
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J) No. 698 of 2005 …. 1. Mantoo Kapri Son of Adhik Lal Kapri, 2. Karu Kapri son of Kailu Kapri Both resident of village-Beharjor, P.S.-Poraiyahat, Dist.-Godda. ……Appellants The State of Jharkhand ……Respondent Versus ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Appellants For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Rajni Singh, Advocate : Mr. Vandana Bharti, APP …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT Order No.05/30.09.2024 This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants-Mantoo Kapri and Karu Kapri, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 27.05.2005 and Sentence dated 27.05.2005 in Sessions Case No.162/91/11/04 by Shri Jagannath Mishra, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, by which the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. However, they have been directed to be released on their entering into a bond of Rupees 1000/- with two sureties of like amount under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 2. Heard Ms. Rajni Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned APP on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset, has submitted that the appellants had been falsely implicated by the informant. However, the learned Court below has acquitted the appellants for the charge under Section 307/34 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. However, the learned Court below wrongly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and had directed them to execute a bond of Rs. 1000/- of two sureties for a period of one year under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that the bond has been executed and as such this appeal has become infructuous and as such she is not pursuing the appeal on merit. 4. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP has submitted that this appeal has become infructuous as the appellants have already furnished the bond. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, it appears that the informant-Khalil Mian had instituted Poraiyahat P.S Case No. 88 of 1986, corresponding to G.R. Case No.739 of 1986 for the offence under Section 323, 354 and 307 of the IPC and under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act on 16.11.1986 for the occurrence taking place on 15.11.1986 against the appellants namely, Mantoo Kapri and Karu Kapri and also against the two others namely Sanjay Kapri and Jagdeo Rout @ Jaduwa Rout. 6. It transpires that the police after investigation had submitted charge sheet against the appellants Mantoo Kapri, Karu Kapri and also against Sanjay Kapri and Jagdeo Rout @ Jaduwa Rout under Sections 323/307 of IPC and Section 24 of Cattle Trespass Act on 29.01.1987 before the learned S.D.J.M Godda. Thereafter, learned S.D.J.M, taken cognizance on 05.03.1987 under Section 323, 307 of IPC and under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. 7. It transpires that the charges were framed against the appellants-Mantoo Kapri, Karu Kapri and also against Sanjay Kapri and Jagdeo Rout @ Jaduwa Rout on 14.08.2002 under Sections 323 and 307/34 of the IPC and also under Section 24 of Cattle Trespass Act by Sri S.K. Sinha, learned Additional Sessions 2 Judge-III, Godda and to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. It transpires that the prosecution in support of its case has examined six (06) witnesses, which are as follows:- (i) PW-1 Md. Sona Ban, (ii) PW-2 Dahwali Mian @ Bagha Mian, (iii) PW-3 Asgar Ali, (iv) PW-4 Abbas Mian, (v) PW-5 Dr. Bindeshwar Panjiyara and (vi) P.W-6 Ram Rattan Rajjak. 9. The prosecution in support of its case, has proved certain documents as Exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit-1 is the Injury Report of the injured Khalil Mian, (ii) Exhibit-2 is the formal FIR and (iii) Exhibit-3 is the fardbayan which has been proved by PW-6 Home Guard and not by the competent witness. 10. It transpires that the appellants namely, Mantoo Kapri and Karu Kapri and two others namely Sanjay Kapri and Jagdeo Rout @ Jaduwa Rout were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by the learned Court below on 11.05.2005 and to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them. 11. Neither any defence was examined nor any document was marked as Exhibit. 12. Thereafter, the learned Court below has convicted the appellants namely Mantoo Kapri and Karu Kapri for the charge under Section 323 of the IPC and directed them to be released on entering into a bond of Rupees 1000/- with two sureties of like amount under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 3 However, the learned Court below has acquitted the appellants for the charges under Section 307/34 of the IPC and section 24 of Cattle Trespass Act. 13. It further transpires that the learned Court below has acquitted the other accused persons Sanjay Kapri and Jagdeo Rout @ Jaduwa Rout for the charges under Section 307/34, 323 of IPC and Section 24 of Cattle Trespass Act. 14. It transpires that the appellants Mantoo Kapri and Karu Kapri had furnished the bond before learned Court below on 27.05.2005 itself i.e. on the date of passing of the impugned judgment and sentence and it further transpires that the learned Court below had accepted the bond filed on behalf of the appellants on 27.05.2005 itself. 15. It transpires that more than ninetten (19) years have expired and thus the period of bond is already over. 16. Thus, it is evident that this Criminal Appeal has become infructuous. 17. Under the circumstances, this Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.698 of
Decision
2005 is disposed of as it having become infructuous. Nishant/- (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 4