Back
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR, ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Md. Danish – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Pradhani Jani vs. State of Odisha, (2024) 4 SCC 451; Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha, (2024) 1 SCR 604—Relied.
Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.05.2017 and 09.05.2017 respectively, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2013 (G.R. No. 3536 of 2012), arising out of Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 248 of 2012, whereby four accused persons were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and RI for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each for the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC, five appeals were filed before this Court; three being appeals preferred by four of the acccused/convicts and the other two being Government Appeal seeking enhancement of sentence under Section 307 of the IPC and an appeal by the victim for adequate compensation under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The prayer for suspension of sentence of the convicts were rejected by different Benches. Those appeals were listed before the Single Judge as the maximum sentence was of
The court cannot decide on the importance or complexity of a case without considering the merits of the connected petitions.
The appeal from an order passed by a single judge under the writ jurisdiction, disposing finally a criminal case, is prohibited due to the specific bar of section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code (....
A judge must operate within their assigned jurisdiction; any order made outside this scope is void.
The jurisdictional conflict between a Single Judge and Division Bench under S.476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code was clarified, asserting that the appeal was maintainable despite procedural errors.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of fair and just procedure in criminal appeals and the need for a thorough examination of the appeal with the assistance of both parties.
The High Court has the authority to direct sentences from separate convictions to run concurrently under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring fair treatment in sentencing.
The territorial jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions under Article 227 is determined by the location of the original authority, not the appellate authority, as mandated by administrative rules.
The victim's right to appeal is absolute and does not require leave; however, a reasonable limitation period of 90 days from judgment knowledge is suggested for filing appeals against acquittals.
Composite petitions challenging FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance should be heard by a Division Bench under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, ensuring uniformity and avoiding jurisdictional....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
