1

Cr. Appeal (SJ).1713 of 20004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1713 of 2004

(Against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated

28.09.2004 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella

in S.T. No. 306 of 1989, arising out to Seraikella P.S. Case No.66 of 1987,

corresponding to G.R. No.482 of 1987 Seraikella, Jharkhand)

Budhdeo Sandil

…

Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

…

Respondent

---

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

---

For the Appellant

: Mr. R.C. P. Sah, Advocate

: Mrs. Ruby Pandey, Advocate

For the State

: Mrs. Niki Sinha, A.P.P.

5/29.03.2022

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction

and order of sentence dated 28.09.2004 passed by the learned 1^st

Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in S.T. No. 306 of 1989, arising

out to Seraikella P.S. Case No.66 of 1987, corresponding to G.R.

No.482 of 1987, whereby and where under both the appellants were

found guilty under section 325 and 342 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.300/- (Rs. Three hundred

only) in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo

one month R.I. each and no separate sentence under Section 342 of

IPC were awarded.

2.

It appears from the record of the case that the record of co-

accused person Munna Samant, Lakhindra Shankh, Durga Charan

Shankh has been split up on 20.03.2001 and only the two accused

appellants namely Madhusudan Sandil and Budhdeo Sandil have

faced the trail and after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court

vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, found

the two appellants above named guilty for the offences punishable

under Sections 325/342 of IPC and accordingly the sentence was

awarded vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which

is under challenge.

3.

It appears from the record of this appeal in hand that a report

dated 05.01.2022 as called for has been received from the Court of

2

Cr. Appeal (SJ).1713 of 20004

District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella that appellant No.1

Madhusudan Sandil had expired during the pendency of the appeal,

and the death certificate is also enclosed with the report, which

shows that he died on 06.01.2011.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants

submitted that since no close relative has come forward to continue

with the appeal on behalf of the deceased appellant Madhusudan

Sandil, let this appeal be abated with respect to the deceased

appellant Madhusudan Sandil.

5.

Accordingly, this appeal is abated with respect to the aforesaid

deceased appellant Madhusudan Sandil, and his name has been

deleted from the cause title of appeal.

6.

The office is directed to delete the name of the deceased

appellant from the cause title of this instant appeal.

7.

Now this appeal is being heard against the sole appellant

Budhdeo Sandil.

8.

The prosecution case as briefly stated by the informant

Manuram Shankh (PW – 3) that on 09.08.1987 at about 7.00 p.m.

while he was sitting near the culvert (PulIia) in the village he came

across PW – 4 Ramnath Shankh who was returning after nature’s call

and that when both were passing from the front of the house of

Raghunath Sandil , these two appellants (one of them Madhusudan

Sandil died during pending this appeal) along with three others

forcibly caught PW – 4 Ramnath Shankh and took him into the

house of Raghunath Sandil. It is further stated that the informant

PW – 3 and PW 2 shortly thereafter rushed to the house of

Raghunath Sandil and found PW -4 in injured condition lying at the

courtyard of Raghunjath Sandil with bleeding injuries.

9.

On the basis of the FIR, the police investigated the case and

charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons along with

others and cognizance