SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA
Ramchandra Mahto, son of late Dhalo Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Twenty persons were named in the First Information Report lodged by Lilo Pandit on 1st October 1988. Jagdish Mahto was not sent up for trial and three accused against whom a charge sheet was filed died in the meantime – they were Kartik Mahto, Titu Mahto and Sanichar Mahto. Jageshwar Mahto, Nandkishore Mahto, Surja Mahto, Ramchandra Mahto, Lattu Mahto, Nunlal Mahto and Hublal Mahto faced the trial on the charge under sections 148, 341, 379, 427, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and the other nine accused have faced the trial on the charge under sections 147, 341, 379, 427, 307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Mahendra Mahto who is the appellant No.2 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 974 of 2010 and Jageshwar Mahto who is the appellant No. 4 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 969 of 2010 passed away during pendency of these criminal appeals, but, in spite of opportunities granted to the legal heirs/successors of these appellants they did not prefer any substitution petition and, accordingly, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 974 of 2010 qua Mahendra Mahto and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 969 of 2010 qua Jageshwar Mahto were dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 21st S
Hari Chand v. State of Delhi (1996) 9 SCC 112
Hem Chand v. State of Haryana (1994) 6 SCC 727
Joseph v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police AIR 2018 SC 93
Kamta Yadav v. State of Bihar (2016) 16 SCC 164
Lahu Kamlakar Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 417
Leela Ram v. State of Haryana (1999) 9 SCC 525
Rana Partap v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.