Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Ahir @ Prasad Ji vs State Of Jharkhand on 3 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 736 of 2023
Krishna Ahir @ Prasad Ji, aged about 44 years, son of late Ganjhu
Ahir, resident of village Moushanga, P.O. and P.S. Arki, District-
Khunti. ...........Appellant
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand ...........Respondent
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Appellant(s) :- Ms. Apporva Singh, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, A.P.P.
05/03.10.2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel
for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2017 passed by the
Learned Court of Rajeev Anand, Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII,
Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 633/2014, arising out of Angara P.S. Case
No. 65/2014, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 4624/2014, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under
sections 147/148/353/307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and
under section 25 (1-B)a of the Arms Act and under section 17 (1) of the
CLA Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for
the offence under section 147 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for One and half
year for the offence under section 148 IPC, Simple Imprisonment for
Two years for the offence under section 353 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment
for 7 years along with a fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine Simple Imprisonment of three months for the offence
under section 307 read with section 149 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for
three years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of
fine further Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s
25(1-B)a Arms Act and Simple Imprisonment for three months for the
offence u/s 17(1) of the CLA Act and all the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has already completed sentence and even he has undergone six
months excess sentence in failure of fine amount. Learned counsel for
the appellant on instruction submits that she does not want to press this
appeal as appellant has already completed sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the appellant is
in custody in another case and in the present case the appellant has
already completed the sentence and that fact has already come in
custody report.
5. In view of above facts and considering that the appellant
has already completed sentence in the present case however he is in
custody in another case and the learned counsel for the appellant is not
pressing this appeal, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Pending I.A,
if any, stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
Satyarthi
