Jharkhand High Court
Jaikant Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2022
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ).233 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.233 of 2006
(Against the Judgment of Conviction dated 04.01.2006 and order of
sentence dated 07.01.2006, passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions
Judge, FTC-II) in Sessions Case No.25 of 2004, arising out of Godda (M)
P.S. Case No.15 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No.40 of 2004.)
Jaikant Yadav ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, A.P.P.
6/27.09.2022 This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Conviction
dated 04.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 07.01.2006, passed by
learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II) in Sessions Case No.25
of 2004, arising out of Godda (M) P.S. Case No.15 of 2004,
corresponding to G.R. No.40 of 2004, whereby and where under
Jaikant Yadav was convicted for the offence punishable under
section 304-B of the IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 1000/-
for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC in case of
default of payment of fine.
2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of fardbayan of Dwarika
Prasad, who was father of Veena Devi, stating therein that the
daughter of the informant Meena Devi was married to Jaikant Yadav
in the year 1998 and at the time of marriage, it was settled between
him and Rohini Yadav, Agnu Yadav and Narayan Yadav to give Rs.
10,000/- cash and a motorcycle Hero Honda in dowry, but he could
only manage the cash of Rs. 10,000/- but could not give the
motorcycle. That for non-fulfilling the demand of motorcycle,
Gouna, despite his repeated request was not accepted till 2002 till he
promised to give motorcycle after selling the land. That on Gauna in
2002 Meena went to her in-laws' house and for about two months,
she was kept properly but when he could not give motorcycle then
Jaikant Yadav, Rohini Yadav, Agnu Yadav, Narayan Yadav and
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ).233 of 2006
Katki Devi (mother of Jaikant Yadav) started harassing and giving
beating to Meena Devi for demand of motorcycle and even they
stopped to provide her food. That he several times went to the
village of the accused persons and requested them not to do so but
they in turn said that if motorcycle was not given they would kill
Meena Devi. That on 15.01.2004, he received information that Meena
Devi was administered poison and was in Sadar hospital, Godda
and receiving this information he went to Sadar hospital, Godda, but
by that time Meena Devi had died. He claimed that his son-in-law
and his relatives Robin Yadav, Agnu Yadav, Narayan Yadav and
Katki Devi, father's, brothers and mother respectively of Jaikant
Yadav administered poison to his daughter to cause her death. On
the basis of aforesaid fardbayan case was registered, inquest on the
dead body of Meena Devi was held, dead body got post mortem,
Viscera of diseased was sent for analysis, witnesses were examined
an on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet against present
accused was preferred on the file of learned C.J.M., who took the
cognizance and in due course it was committed to the court of
sessions for trial and the learned trial court after conducting the full-
fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction an order
of sentence, which is under challenge.
3. Heard Mr. Peeyush Krishna Chaudhry, learned defence
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned APP Smt.
Nehala Sharmin appearing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned defence counsel submitted that the appellant has
served the sentence as awarded by the learned court below and after
serving the sentence, he has been released from the jail. Further it is
contended that now the appellant does not want to argue this case
on merit since the appellant has already served the sentence and
therefore, let this appeal be disposed of accordingly.
5. On the other hand, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State also submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf
of the state, stating therein that the appellant Jaikant Yadav being the
appellant convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-B of
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ).233 of 2006
IPC and served the sentence as awarded by the learned court below
and he has completed the total period in jail in this case, i.e. 6 years
11 months and 9 days and after serving the sentence, he has been
released from the jail. Further it is submitted on behalf of the state
that since the appellant does not want to argue this case and
therefore, let this appeal be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of this case, it is found that the learned trial court had
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 304-
B of the IPC and after holding the guilt under section 304-B of IPC,
he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years with a
fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under section 304-B of IPC and in
case of default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo
further imprisonment for two months.
7. Now in the light of submission advanced on behalf of the
appellant that the appellant does not want to argue this case on
merit and it is found that the sole appellant Jaikant Yadav has served
the sentence awarded by the learned trial court for a term of 6 years
11 months and 9 days and after serving the sentence, he has been
released from the jail. Further it is found that the appellant does not
want to argue this case on merit. Accordingly this appeal deserves to
be dismissed.
8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
9. Let a copy this Judgment along with the lower court records be
sent back forthwith. Accordingly the I.A. No. 716 of 2022 also gets
disposed of.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi,
Dated the 27.09.2022/NAFR
R.Kumar/-
