Pramila Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opp. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2583 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pramila Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand. ... ... Opp. ... on 1 April, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 597 of 2009

          Pramila Devi                             ...       ...    Appellant
                             Versus
       The State of Jharkhand.            ...       ...      Opp. Party
                             ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellant : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, APP

---

05/01.04.2026

1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment. He submits that the case has to be argued by his senior Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.

2. However, at the insistence of Court, he has placed the case and has submitted that the appellant has been convicted only because she happened to be present at the place of occurrence and her husband is alleged to be an extremist.

3. He has submitted that even as per the First Information Report, there is no overt act assigned to the appellant rather she was found with a child of 1½ months on her lap. He has also submitted that even as per the learned trial court's judgment, the appellant did not take any part in the alleged occurrence, but she has been convicted on the ground that she is a member of extremist group. He has also submitted that as per the order of sentence, the present case is said to be a first offence of the appellant and there is no material that she was a member of extremist group as no other case was registered against her.

4. He has submitted that merely because the lady happened to be the wife of one extremist, the same by itself cannot be a ground to sustain her conviction with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code inasmuch as there is no overt act of the appellant.

5. He has also submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the other co-accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence and from the place of occurrence, arms and ammunition were recovered and therefore, conviction of the appellant under the Arms Act is also not sustainable, merely because she was present at the place of occurrence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that as per instructions, the appellant has remained in custody for 5½ years.

7. Learned counsel for the State submit that he shall go through the records.

8. The matter has remained part heard.

9. Post this case on 02nd April, 2026 for further hearing.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Rakesh/-