Mahima Nand v. The State
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 374(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 149, 332, 436, 458
Judgment
None appears for the appellant Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. G.A. for the State Hon. DHARAM VEER, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 28.02.1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in S.T. No.17 of 1984, whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 147, 458, 332/149 and 436/149 of IPC and was sentenced to six months’ R.I. u/s 147 IPC; one year’s R.I. u/s 332/149 IPC; three years’ R.I. u/s 458 IPC and three years’ R.I. u/s 436/149 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On 17.04.2008, the non-bailable warrant was issued against the appellant and notices were also issued to the sureties and CJM concerned was directed to ensure compliance of the order within two weeks’. In compliance of that order, CJM, Tehri Garhwal vide his report dated 29.4.2008 has informed that the appellant-Mahimanand died on 4.12.2007. Along with the report sent by CJM, Tehri Garwhal, the report sent by P.S. Kotwali, New Tehri and the death certificate with regard to appellant Mahimanand has also been annexed, which also show that the appellant Mahimanand died on 4.12.2007. In view of the fact that the sole appellant- Mahimanand died on 04.12.2007, the appeal preferred by the appellant stands abated. Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 374(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 149, 332, 436, 458.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 08 May 2008. The bench was DHARAM VEER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.