Jharkhand High Court
Sitaram Verma vs State Of Jharkhand on 25 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1171 of 2004
....
Sitaram Verma, son of Rushan Mahto, resident of Village
Bhandaro, P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar
......Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand ......Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P
......
Order No.14/25.02.2025
This Criminal Application has been filed on behalf of the
appellant by challenging the judgement dated 10.05.2004 passed
in Sessions Case No.178 of 1999 by which then learned Sessions
Judge, Sri Harish Chandra Mishra (as then His Lordship was),
Deoghar by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence
under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and granted the benefit of Section 3
of the Probation of Offenders Act and although then learned
Session Judge had acquitted the appellant of the charges under
Section 341, 324 and 307 I.P.C by the same impugned judgment.
Mr. Uttam Kr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of
the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the
State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned judgment passed by learned Court below is illegal and
not sustainable in the eye of law. However, it is further submitted
that the appellant had already been released after due admonition
by the learned Court below and he is not pressing the appeal as this
Criminal Appeal has become infructuous.
3. Learned A.P.P submitted that this Criminal Appeal has
become infructuous as such this may be dismissed.
4. It appears that the instant Criminal Appeal was filed on
20.07.2004 and it was admitted on 23.12.2004 and the matter
remained pending and Lower Court Records was called for.
5. From perusal of the Lower Court Records, it transpires
that the appellant has already been granted benefit of Section 3 of
Probation of Offenders Act by releasing him after by due
admonition.
6. It also appears that when the appeal was filed then none
had appeared on behalf of the appellant for several days and as
such earlier Mr. Pankaj Kumar was appointed as Amicus Curiae
vide order dated 24.11.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
(Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar) of this Court Later on when
Mr. Pankaj Kumar learned Amicus Curiae became Public
Prosecutor under the State of Jharkhand and as such he in not able
to appear in this case on behalf of the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, was appointed as
Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant in this case vide order
dated 22.01.2025 by this Court.
8. Thereafter, Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, has argued the case as
an Amicus Curiae in this case.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal No.1171 of 2004 is
dismissed as having become infructuous.
10. Let the entire Original Lower Court Records be sent to the
learned Court below by the Office at once.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Member
Secretary, JHALSA for paying an appropriate remuneration to
Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, Advocate who assisted to this Court as an
Amicus Curiae.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Nishant/-
