Ruplal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3673 Jhar

                                        1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr. Revision No.500 of 2003

           1. Ruplal Mahto, Son of Jagdish Mahto
           2. Jagdish Mahto, Son of Late Gyani Mahto
           3. Jamuni Devi, Wife of Jagdish Mahto
            All residence of village-Bihari, out post-Padma
            within Barhi Police station, District-Hazaribag ... Petitioners
                                            Versus
           The State of Jharkhand                           ... ... Opp. Party
                         ---

CORAM: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Through:Video Conferencing

6/28.09.2021 Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Jyoti Prasad Sinha is present.

2. Counsel for the State Ms. Sweta Singh is also present.

3. The present application for revision is directed against the judgment dated 24.03.2003 passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No.32/2001 arising out of T.R. Case No.893/2001 (G.R. Case No.714 of 98) under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby and whereunder the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the petitioners from the charge under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh vide Judgements dated 19.02.2001 sentencing the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

4. Counsel for the State submits that an affidavit in the present case mentioning that all the petitioners of the present case have expired during the pendency of the present revision petition. She submits that no fine amount as such has been imposed by the learned court below and therefore the present proceeding stands abated.

5. Considering the submission made and on account of death of the petitioners during the pendency of the present case, the present proceeding is treated as abated.

6. LCR be sent back forthwith to the court concerned.

7. Let this order be communicated to the learned court below through FAX/e-mail.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)