Jharkhand High Court
Shyamlal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 74 of 2025
Shyamlal Mahto, s/o Bodhan Mahto, aged about 71 years,
resident of Village-Amnari, P.O.-Jagarnath Dham, P.S.-
Hazaribagh, Dist.-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Subhash Chandra Prasad, s/o late Hiraman Mahto, r/o-
Village- Amnari, P.O.-Jagarnath Dham, P.S.-Hazaribagh, Dist.-
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
.... Respondents
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC I
: Mrs. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC I
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory
application has been filed with a prayer to amend the writ petition
by substituting the words 'Article 226" as appearing in page no.1 of
the writ petition under the heading 'In the matter of' with the words
"Article 226 and Article 227"" in the cause title.
3. The prayer is allowed.
4. Registry is directed to incorporate the word "and Article 227" after
the word "Article 226" in the cause title of the writ petition with red
ink.
5. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India
with a prayer for quashing the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh in S.T. Case No.
02 of 2020 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 141 of 2019,
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 866 of 2019 involving the offences
punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby
and where under, the learned court below has summoned the
petitioner invoking its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., after
disposal of the said S.T. Case No. 02 of 2020 in which the accused
persons of that case have been convicted on 10.08.2023 and
sentenced on 21.08.2023.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab reported in
(2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252 that in paragraph no. 33 of that
judgment the constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has held as under:-
33. For all the reasons stated above, we answer the
questions referred as hereunder.
(I) Whether the trial court has the power under Section
319CrPC for summoning additional accused when the
trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the
judgment of conviction rendered on the same date
before pronouncing the summoning order?
The power under Section 319CrPC is to be invoked and
exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence
where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In
the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before
the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the
summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by
imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order
is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on
the facts and circumstances of each case and if such
summoning order is passed either after the order of
acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the
same will not be sustainable. (Emphasis supplied)
X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
4. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
the order dated 18.04.2024 in Sessions Trial Case No. 02 of 2020, the
certified copy of which has been annexed herewith, the learned
Additional Session Judge-VI, Hazaribagh has also referred the
judgment of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State of Punjab (supra)
but has failed to take note of the answer to the question number I, in
paragraph no.33 of the said judgment, which says that power under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is to be invoked and exercised before the
pronouncement of the judgment of conviction and the order of the
sentence, where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. It is
further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
S.T. Case No. 02 of 2020 is a case where only two of the accused
persons namely Shivnandan Kumar and Kanchan Devi have faced
the trial. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that there is no absconding accused persons of the case nor any trial
of any co-accused is going on. Drawing attention of this Court to
Annexure-3 which is the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 10.08.2023 and 21.08.2023 respectively, it is submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the accused
persons of the case have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced
to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for two months and in view of the settled
principle of law in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The State
of Punjab (supra) dated 06.09.2023 passed by a Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India reported in 2022 INSC 1252, it is submitted
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated
18.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI,
Hazaribagh in S.T. Case No.02 of 2020 be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that as is evident from
Annexure-3 which is the copy of the certified copy of the judgment
passed in S.T. Case No. 02 of 2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge-
VI-cum-Spl. Judge, Crime Against Woman, Hazaribagh; that the said
judgment of conviction was passed on 10.08.2023 and order of
sentence was pronounced on 21.08.2023 hence, the exercise of the
power beyond that date on 18.04.2024 in the said case, for which the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh became functus
officio is certainly not in accordance with law.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
going through the materials available in the record, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that in view of the answer to the question
number- I, in paragraph no.33 of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. The
State of Punjab reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribagh has committed
grave illegality by exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in
S.T. Case No. 02 of 2020 long after pronouncement of the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence, in the said case on 18.04.2024,
more so because, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI,
Hazaribagh became functus officio in respect of S.T. Case No. 02 of
2020, by that date. Hence, the order dated 18.04.2024 being not in
accordance with law, the same is quashed and set aside.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 29th January, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
