INTERNSHIP REPORT

COURT DIARY

NAME :- AVISHI RAJ

ENROLLMENT NO :- 22617703819

SEMESTER AND SECTION :- V-E

COURSE :- (INTEGRATED) BA LLB

NAME OF THE ADVOCATE :- MR. RAKESH RANJAN , CIVIL COURT , JAMTARA

SUBMITTED FOR :- COMPREHENSIVE VIVA & SUMMER INTERNSHIP ASSESSMENT

SUBJECT CODE :- LLB 351

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

DELHI

DECEMBER, 2021
 INDEX

SL PG
NO. NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. DECLARATION 4

3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT 5

4. CERTIFICATE OF INTERNSHIP 6-7

5. LIST OF CASES

i Bablu Rawani vs ashok rawani and others 8

ii Savitri devi Vs Haradhan Dutta & Others 9

iii. Md. Taleb Ansari S/o Rajauddin Ansari, Vs State of jharkhand 10-11

iv Arti kumari vs Jagannath Das 12-13

v. Naresh Pandit & others Vs The state 14-15

vi Suresh prasad Burnwal vs Anil Kri Poddar 16-17

vii Sonamani Marandi & others vs Branch manager of Oriental 18-20

insurance company Ltd.

viii State through Sahdeo prasad Vs Halim Ansari & others 21-23

ix Sahnaj Bano Vs Shahjahan Alam & others 24

x Birchandra Vs Sanjay Tiwari & others 25-26

xi Logi Kasu Manoj Murmu Vs Branch Manager Of New India 27-28

xii Savitri Mondal Vs Amrit Mondal & others 29-30

xiii State vs Driver Of pickup 31-32

1
xiv Prem sagar Mondal Vs Amrit Mondal & others 33-35

xv Prahalad Mondal Vs Abdul wahid Ansari 36

xvi State of jharkhand through Hasimuddin Ansari Vs Rajaram 37

xvii Bablu ramani Vs Ashok Rawani 38-

xviii Purnima Dutta VS Kartik Dutta 39-40

2
 INTRODUCTION :-

Study of law entails legal knowledge and reasoning in the minds of students who are
going to become lawyers in future. Curriculum in law school includes a right mix of
theory as well as practical. The application of law and its study are two different
aspects which are duly taken care of in law colleges. The internship is a mode through
which students can learn the nuances of law and see the law in action. The practise of
law requires active steps to be taken right from the stage one enters into law school.

During the summer vacation after our exams , I utilized the opportunity to have
hands-on experience on application of law. I joined an internship with Mr Rakesh
Ranjan at civil court jamtara. Sir handles all affairs relating to civil and criminal
matters and has matters covering wide jurisdiction.

Sir was helpful and patient enough to introduce me to the legal arena. I got valuable
experience in varied areas of law. From criminal matters including filing bail
application civil matters involving core of civil procedure code.

Through this diary, I am going to share my internship experience for a period of 1

month (From 2-08-2021 to 30-08-2021). Although I will try my best to share my
experience , there are certain limitations to my memory and knowledge . I have
included the maximum number of cases which I have handled during my internship.

3
 DECLARATION

This declaration is made in Jamtara, jharkhand that this internship report contains the
work accomplished by me which was assigned to me during internship. This work was
done in respect of the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of
bachelor of law (BA LLB). This has not been submitted either in whole or in part to
any other Law university or affiliated Institute under University , recognised by bar
Council of India for the award of any degree or diploma within the territories of India.
All information provided here, have been comprehended from actual legal documents
and do not contain any alteration as far the facts and judicial orders are concerned .

4
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Before submitting my detailed report/ diary on Internship. I find an opportunity to

place on record my warm gratitude towards Professor Dr. Rashmi Salpekar Ma'am
DEAN, VSLLS , Indraprastha University And other faculty members , our respected
teachers encourage us towards Internship and how to perform our duty during
Internship. I would like to place my warm attitude towards Mr. Rakesh Ranjan ,
Advocate , under whom I completed my Internship and I gained a detailed and useful
experience for the purpose of Internship as well as for the profession of advocacy in
near future.

I would also like to thank and extend my regards to you sir for being an excellent
mentor and teacher of the moot courts and Internships. It is solely due to her guidance
and mentorship that I have been able to complete my Internship Project successfully.

5
 CERTIFICATE

The document attached herein is the true copy of the certificate I received by me in
lieu of the work undertaken during the course of my internship.

6
7
 DAY 1 (02-08-2021)

In the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) -III, Jamtara, Jharkhand

Present :- Prabhakar Singh Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III Jamtara

Case no - 15-2021

Bablu Rawani Plaintiff

VS

Ashok Rawani & others Defendants

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI , RULE 17 RW SEC 151

CPC

This rule basically says that the court will not allow an application of amendment after
the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that the party did
not raise the relevant facts before the commencement of the trial .

In this case the petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner who prays to amend the
plaint as well as a preliminary decree in the schedule of the plaint and accordingly the
amendment be allowed.

After hearing the council for party this application was allowed in the interest of
justice and hence Hon’ble justice ordered the amendment ,must be ordered within 7
days and put up for next hearing.

8
 DAY 2 (04-08-2021)

In the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara, Jharkhand

PRESENT :- Devesh Kumar Tripathi Addl. Sessions Judge-III Jamtara.

Sessions Trial No. 115/2018

State of Jharkhand through Savitri Dasi ………….. Prosecution

-Versus

Haradhan Dutta & others Accused Persons

FACTS

The prosecution case in brief is that on 09.09.2012 at 9:00 AM, the informant Savitri
Dey was in her house. In the meantime accused Haradhan Dutta, Nepal Dutta, Paresh
Dutta, Purnima Devi in furtherance of common intention forcefully entered into the
house of the informant and Haradhan Dutta assaulted her by means of Tangi on her
head. On raising alarm Rekha Devi came to rescue her then accused persons assaulted
Rekha Devi on her thigh by rod. It has also been alleged that when son of the
informant Sumant Dey entered the house, the accused Paresh Dutta and Purnima
Dutta assaulted him on his waist by the handle of Gaita. The informant has also
alleged that with intention to kill them the accused persons assaulted her and her
family members. Cause of occurrence has been reported as an objection raised by the
informant regarding removal of stone by the accused persons which was kept by the
Amin after measurement. Hence this case. The cognizance of offences u/Ss.
448/341/323/325/307 r/w 34 of the I.P.C were taken up by the learned C.J.M.As the
offence committed u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, therefore the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned
C.J.M. on 03.08.2018.The charges u/Ss. 448/34, 341/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of
the I.P.C. have been framed against all the accused persons on 25.11.2018 and the
same were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they had pleaded “not
guilty” and claimed to be tried. The statements of the accused persons were recorded
u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 14.01.20. The accused persons have stated during the course
of recording their statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. that they are innocent and all the
allegations against them are false. The plea of the accused persons while answering
the questions put up to them at the time of framing of charges against them as well as

9
at the time of their examination u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of innocence and of false
implication by the informant and others witnesses. Now, therefore, it has to be

adjudicated whether prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable
shadows of doubt or not ?

OBSERVATION :-

Judgement was given on the present case today. In order to substantiate its case,
prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses in this case. Taking the reference of
precedent cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh and another Vs.
Sukhbir Singh reported (1988) 4 SCC 551 and The same view was reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the case of Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, reported as
(2015) 11 SCC 366 herein it has been held as under . For the purpose of conviction
under Section 307 IPC was taken .All the accused persons were acquitted from the
charges u/s. 307/34 of IPC as there is no sufficient evidence available on record to
hold them guilty. On the other hand they all are also acquitted from the charges u/Ss.
323/34, 325/34, 341/34 and 448/34 of IPC in view of their joint compromise.
Permission sought to compound the offence u/s 325 of IPC is allowed considering the
amicable settlement of dispute between both the parties and in the interest of justice.
As such accused persons are also discharged from their bail bond and their bailors are
also discharged from their respective sureties.

10
 DAY 3 (05-04-2021)

In the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara. Jharkhand

Present :- Bipin Bihari Gautam Additional Sessions Judge-II,

Criminal revision Case no :- 20-2021

Md. Taleb Ansari S/o Rajauddin Ansari, ………........Petitioner. -

Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ............... Opposite Party.

FACTS

The prosecution case in brief as per the FIR is that the informant was married with
accused Mohd. Taleb Ansari on 06.05.2017 according to Muslim rites and rituals.
After one year of marriage, the informant’s husband Talib Ansari, father-in-law
Rajauddin Ansari, brother-in-lawSultan Ansari started to torture the informant and
pressurized her to bring Rs. One Lac from her maike. It is further alleged that six
months ago the informant’s father-in-law Rajauddin Ansari and brother-in-law Sultan
Ansari have tried to molest and attempted to commit rape with her in absence of her
husband. On protest they threatened her that if she wants to live in this house, then she
has to do illegal work with them and if she denies, then they will solemnize another
marriage of accused Taleb Ansari. The informant did not tell this matter to anybody
due to fear and at present she is living in her maike at Tarni village. On 10.07.2020 at
about 10.00 A.M. the informant’s Sultan Ansari came to her maike and tried to
commit rape with informant finding her alone. On crying, he fled away and threatened
to kill her and also threatened that they will solemnize the second marriage of accused
Talib Ansari. Thereafter the informant told her family members about the occurrence
and her father tried to convene panchayati. The informant’s in-laws evaded and finally
they disobeyed the panchayati and she is living at her maternal home with her child.
On the basis of the above written report, Jamtara (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 08/2020 was
registered against the accused/petitioner and others u/s 498(A)/34/, 376/511 of IPC
and u/s 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation the police has submitted a
charge-sheet on 24.11.2020 u/s 498(A)/376/511/34 of IPC against the accused
Rajauddin Ansari pending investigation against two other co-accused persons. Heard

11
the learn'd lawyer on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is bad
in law and contrary to the facts and evidence on record and the impugned order is also
contrary to the direction of the Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that neither summons nor warrant was issued on the petitioner before
issuance of process u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. and as per the Apex Court’s decision, only after
the receipt of the service report of the summons, warrant may be issued. Learned
counsel of the petitioner further argues that in the instant case, records show that there
is no issuance of summons or bailable warrant against the petitioner and without
receipt of the service of summons, process has been issued against the petitioner u/s
82 of Cr.P.C. without observing the due legal mandatory formalities. He also argued
that the impugned order in gross misuse of process of law and hence, is unsustainable,
therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the petitioner to allow the revision and impugned
order dated 12.04.2021 be set aside. Learned defence counsel also filed photocopies
of following citations:- i) Indra Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors.- AIR 2008, SC 251 ii) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr., AIR 2014, SC-2756. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the
submissions made by the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner and
submits that the present accused/petitioner is absconding since beginning. He further
submits that notice of Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. was issued by the police but the
accused did not appear in the police station. Although, I learned P.P. concedes that
service report of summon, notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C. and Execution Report of N.B.W.
The accused/petitioner Taleb Ansari is not attached on the record. But learned Public
Prosecutor further submits that accused/petitioner is knowingly evading his arrest after
having full knowledge of the case and police has taken the processes 82 of Cr.P.C.
against the accused. But in spite of that, the accused neither appeared in the police
station nor surrendered before. the court. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for any
relief. Therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the prosecution to dismiss the revision.

OBSERVATION
The Judgement was given in this present case, it is admitted fact on the record that
notice u/s 41(A) of Cr.P.C. to the accused/petitioner Taleb Ansari has not been
properly served upon him. It is also apparent from record that no service report of
summons or warrant is attached on the record, neither any execution report of bailable
warrant of arrest and non-bailable warrant of arrest have been submitted by the police
in the court below. As such, the order passed by the court below vide order-sheet dated
12.04.2021 on the prayer of I.O. to issue process u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the
petitioner, on the police report that accused/ petitioner Taleb Ansari is absconding
from his arrest, is not proper. Accordingly, the order passed in lower court is bad in
the eye of law and liable to be set aside.

12
 06-08-2021(Day 4)

IN THE COURT OF SDJM, CIVIL COURT , JAMTARA, JHARKHAND

PCR CASE NO :- COMPLAINT CASE 183/2021

ARTI KUMARI COMPLAINANT

VS

JAGANNATH DAS, EKASI DEVI, RAJENDRA DAS ACCUSED

FACTS

The complainant is an unmarried girl and is resident of kiangoi, Mihijam , district

Jamtra .She came in contact with the accused no 1 on august 2017 on the eve of her
sisters marriage negotiation. The accused no 1 stealthily took her mobile phone and
started talking to her and a love affair started between them. When the complainant
was alone at her home at Kangoi the accused no 1 proposed the complainant to marry
her on her birthday and on the false pretext of marriage has made sexual intercourse
with the complainant. After fulfilling his lust, the accused told him that he shall take
her to meet his mother and other family members and after that settled their marriage .
But on 14th december he took her to his house at village palma when the accused no 1
mother i.s accused no 2 was ill and introduced her with the other accused persons. The
complainant resided there for 1 month and all the other accused persons assured the
complainant that they shall arrange a their marriage with the accused after the
recovery of his mother from illness.During this period the accused made sexual
intercourse with the complainant several times. That in february 2019 the complainant
became pregnant and she intimated about her pregnancy to the accused persons.The
accused forcibly gave her some medicine to destroy the foetus in her womb and thus
her pregnancy was miscarried and asked her to not to disclose the same in the society.
In hope of marriage the complainant again maintains her relationship with the accused
persons. Than the accused continued to meet the girl on every occasion and also
continued her sexual relationship with the complainant at kangoi. In the month of
August 2020 the girl again became pregnant and intimated the same to the accused
persons. But he again forcibly administered her some medicine on 15 august 2020.
And because of that pregnancy was miscarried against her will. That girl came to

13
know that the accused had solemnised her marriage on 13 may 2021 with some other
girl and found herself cheated by the accused persons.

OBSERVATION

My advocate on behalf of the complainant prays that Your Honour be pleased to send
this complaint to OC ,Jamtara Mahila PS u/s 156(3) CrPC for registering the case and
for investigation u /s 376 , 313 , 493 , 420 . 406/34 of the IPC and they may be tried
in court. Court was adjourned due to covid 19.

Next Hearing :- 28-09-2021

14
 DAY 6 (07-08-21)

In the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamtara

Anticipatory Bail Petition No. 165/2021

Naresh Pandit & Others Petitioner

Vs.

The State. Respondent

FACTS
At about 07.00 A.M. The informant was repairing his wall, which was damaged by
water. In the meantime, accused persons namely Naresh Pandit, Mantu Pandit and
Churu Pandit came to the house of the informant and stopped him from making the
wall and started abusing. It is further alleged that accused Naresh Pandit gave rod
blows on the head of the informant due to which his head was cracked. At that time,
accused Mantu Pandit assaulted the informant on his head with an axe of iron, on
which his head got injured and blood started oozing. It is also alleged that when the
informant’s wife Hasina Bibi came to save him, then accused Naresh Pandit assaulted
her and turned her clothes and assaulted in her stomach and breast. The accused Churu
Pandit assaulted the informant's mother Kariban Bibi after entering the house and
snatched the silver chain. The nearby people assembled and saved them. From perusal
of the case diary, it transpires that the informant Kayamuddin Ansari himself and
independent witnesses namely Arjun Yadav, Haradhan Mandal, Samid Ansari, Ayub
Ansari, Videshi Mandal, Chatur Mandal, Jahad Ali of case diary, have clearly
admitted about the assault and abusing between both the parties and they have also
accepted the fact that counter case has also been lodged, but they have not stated even
a single word about the outraging of modesty of informant’s wife and snatching the
silver sikri. Rather the witnesses have clearly accepted that the occurrence of
molestation and snatching of ornament, is totally false. It further appears that the
allegation of 354(B)/379 IPC seems to be ornamental because in support of that, there
is no any evidence in the case diary.From the injury report of informant Kayamuddin
Ansari dated 14.07.2021, it transpires that the injuries are simple in nature. So, the
case of u/s 323 IPC is made out which is bailable in nature. It further appears that the
allegation of 307 IPC also seems to be ornamental because from perusal of injury
report, it appears that only lacerated wound and swelling have been found over the

15
body of alleged victim Kayamuddin Ansari and the injuries opined as simple in nature
by the medical officer. It is also crystal clear that neither any repeated blow nor any
such type of injury has been found over the body of the alleged victim which can be
fatal for life. So, the offence u/s 307 of IPC has also not been made out in this case. It
is also admitted fact on the record that there is a case and counter case between the
parties regarding minor land disputes for repairing the wall. It is also apparent from
the record that both the cases have been amicably settled. Both the parties have
compromised in both the cases An anticipatory bail petition has been filed on behalf
of accused/petitioners namely (i). Naresh Pandit, (ii). Mantu Pandit and (iii). Churu
Pandit, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Case No. 43/2021, for
the alleged offences committed u/s 341/323/325/326/307/ 354(B)/448/379/34 of the
IPC. i.e. Karmatanr P.S. Case No. 42/2021 and counter case Karmatanr P.S. Case No.
43/2021 and a compromise petition has also been filed. Therefore, in my opinion it is
fit case to take a lenient view towards the accused/petitioners in view of compromise.

OBSERVATION

Judgment:- Court grants anticipatory bail to the accused/petitioners. Hence, the

accused/petitioners namely (i). Naresh Pandit, (ii). Mantu Pandit and (iii). Churu
Pandit, who are apprehending their arrest in connection are directed to release on bail
in the event of their arrest by the police or surrender before the court below after
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. The
accused/petitioners are hereby directed to surrender before the learned court below
within 15 days.

16
 Day 7 (09-08-2021)

In the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara.

Present :- Devesh Kumar Tripathi Addl. Sessions Judge-III.

Sessions Trial No. 136/2017 ( Arising out of Jamtara P.S. Case No.162/2016,
Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 545/2016 )

State of Jharkhand through Suresh Prasad Burnwal Prosecution

Vs

Anil Kumar Poddar & others Accused Persons

FACTS :-

The above named accused persons stand charged and facing trial for having
committed offences u/Ss. 143,341,323,379,448,427 and 506 of the I.P.C . The
prosecution case in brief is that on 17.06.2016 at 3 PM,the informant was at his shop.
In the meantime accused persons Anil Poddar, Sunil Kumar Poddar, Sandip Kumar
Poddar, Sanjay Poddar and Ramlal Poddar armed with iron rod and bricks with
intention to assault the informant entered into his shop and Sunil Kumar Poddar tried
to give a rod blow on the head of informant which was stopped by his son Sumit
Burnwal and he sustained injury. It has been further alleged that Sunil Kumar Poddar
also assaulted the nephew of the informant namely Sunil Kumar Burnwal by means of
rod. Anil Poddar and Sandip Poddar broke the glass of his shop by stone and Sandip
Poddar took away Rs. 5000/- from the shop of the informant. The informant has also
alleged 2 Sessions Trial No. 136/2017 that he has filed Title Suit No. 49 of 2015 in
regard to a disputed shop against Sandip Kumar Poddar, which is still pending. All the
accused persons tried to forcibly vacate the suit shop from the informant. Hence this
case. On the basis of the above said written report of the informant, the
Officer-in-Charge of Jamtara Police Station, registered the instant case u/Ss. 143, 341,
323, 379, 448, 427 and 506 of the I.P.C against the above named accused persons. A
formal F.I.R. was drawn up for investigation and the case was entrusted to A.S.I.
Ramanand Paswan. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet u/Ss 143, 341,
323, 379, 448, 427 and 506 of the I.P.C was drawn up against the above named
accused persons vide charge-sheet No. 128/2016 dated 30.06.2016. The cognizance of
offences u/Ss 143,341,323,379,448,427 and 506 of the I.P.C was taken up by the

17
learned C.J.M, Jamtara vide order dated 25.07.2016. As the offence committed u/s
379 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned C.J.M. on 06.11.2016. The charges
u/Ss 143,341,323,379,448,427 and 506 of the I.P.C. were framed against the accused
persons on 11.12.2017 and It was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which
they had pleaded “not guilty” and had claimed to be tried.The statement of the
accused persons were recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 09.02.2021. The accused
persons have stated during the course of recording their statement u/s 313 of the
Cr.P.C. that they are innocent and all the allegations against them are false. The plea of
the accused persons while answering the questions put to them at the time of framing
of charges against them as well as at the time of their examination u/s 313 of the
Cr.P.C. is that of their innocence and false implication by the informant and others
witnesses. Now, therefore, it has to be adjudicated whether prosecution has been able
to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadows of doubt or not ?

OBSERVATION

The judgment was given of the present case in the above facts and circumstances and
discussions all the accused persons are not found guilty for the offence u/s 143, 341,
379, 427 and 448 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted from these charges. On
the other hand accused Sunil Kumar Poddar, who was attributed main role of assault
by the injured and duly corroborated by most of all prosecution witnesses, is hereby
held guilty u/Ss 323 and 506 of IPC in view of findings returned as above and rest
other accused persons are also acquitted from the charges u/Ss 323 and 506 of IPC as
well. Therefore, bail bond filed by the accused Sunil Kumar Poddar is hereby
canceled and he is taken into custody. With regard to rest other accused persons who
are already on bail, it is hereby ordered that the bail bond furnished by them remain
operative u/s 437A of Cr.P.C. and shall remain in force for six months from the date of
this judgment.
Put up in the afternoon for hearing on the point of Sentence.
This Court has pronounced the judgment in this case in the forenoon today, holding
the accused Sunil Kumar Poddar guilty for the offences u/Ss 323 and 506 of IPC. The
punishment for the offence u/s 323 of IPC is prescribed as imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to 1 year, or with fine which may extend to
Rs. 1000/-, or with both whereas punishment for the offence u/s 506 of IPC is of either
description for a term which may extend to 2 years and shall also liable to fine or both.
So far as submission of Ld. Counsel for the convict to release the convict on Probation
of Good Conduct u/s 360 Cr.P.C is concerned, I find that section 360 of Cr.P.C
specifically provides that when any person not under 21 years of age is convicted of

18
an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or
less and no previous conviction is proved against the offenders, if it appears to the
Court before which they have convicted, regard being had of the age, character or
criminal antecedents of the offenders particularly the circumstances in which the
offence was committed, that it is expedient that the offenders should be released on
Probation of Good Conduct. After thread bare examination of the materials available
on the record, submissions made on behalf of both sides and regard being had to the
age, character and criminal antecedents of the offender particularly the circumstances
in which the offence was committed, I find it expedient that the offender Sunil Kumar
Poddar should be released on Probation of Good Conduct. As such, it is hereby
directed that the convict namely Sunil Kumar Poddar , be released on furnishing a
personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for a period
of one year.

19
 DAY 8 ( 10-08-2021)

In the court of District Judge -1-cum-Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Jamtara.

Present : Kamal Kumar Srivastava, District Judge-I- cum- Presiding Officer,
M.A.C.T., Jamtara.

M.A.C.C. No. 01/2010

Sonamuni Marandi & others Claimants.

Vs

The Branch Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others

Respondents/Opp. Parties

FACTS :-

Claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Munshi Mrandi being
wives and sons. It has been further mentioned in the claim petition that on 30.11.2009
at 9.15 p.m. deceased Munshi Marandi was returning from Tambajore on his
motorcycle then on the way near village Basnali, P.S. and District Jamtara, a dumper
bearing Reg. No. HR26 6228 came with high speed driven by its driver rashly and
negligently, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which the said Munshi Marandi
sustained serious head and body injury due to which he died on spot. It has been
further alleged that the brother of the deceased namely Parsan Marandi lodged the
F.I.R. on 01.12.2009 at 8.15 a.m. against the driver of said dumper. It has been also
mentioned in the claim petition that at the time of said accident, the deceased was
aged about 45 years and he was self-employed having income of Rs. 6,000/- per
month from his shop. It has been further alleged that the said offending vehicle
dumper was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. It has been further
alleged that claimants are the wives and sons of deceased and they are entitled for the
compensation amount.After issuance of notice, the O.P. No.1, the Insurance Company
appeared and filed his written statement challenging that the claim application is not
maintainable as barred by principle of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence and further the
claimants have no cause of action for the present case. It has been further pleaded that
the statements made in the claim petition are denied except those which are

20
specifically admitted. It has been further alleged that the vehicle in question involved
in the accident was dumper and the same was commercial vehicle and for the
commercial vehicle valid and effective Insurance Policy valid and effective route
permit and effective driving licence are the mandatory requirement of law and plying
of such vehicle without permit is infraction and if the owner violate the terms and
conditions of the Policy u/s 149 M.V. Act, this O.P./Respondent is not liable to make
any payment or compensation rather the owner of the offending vehicle is liable for
the same. It has been further pleaded that the deceased was driving the motorcycle at
the time of accident without a crash helmet, which violets section 128 of M.V. Act and
as such, the deceased died due to his own negligence, for which this respondent is not
liable to pay compensation. It has been further pleaded that statements made in para 1
to 16 of original petition are not within the knowledge of this respondent and the same
denied and further the statement made para 17 is admitted. However, claimants have
not furnished Insurance particulars, hence, this O.P. is not liable to pay compensation.
It has been further pleaded that the compensation claimed by claimants is high and
excessive, which is denied by this respondent and the claimants are not entitled to get
the same and the same is to be assessed by the learned Tribunal. It has been further led
that the said dumper vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions
made in section 149 of M.V. Act and as per the knowledge of this, the offending
dumper vehicle was being plied without route permit, as such this respondent is
unable to indemnify the owner and the owner is fully liable to pay the entire
compensation to the claimants. Lastly, he has submitted that the claim petition is not
maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. O.P./Respondents No. 2 and 3,
who are the owner and driver respectively of the dumper have appeared and they have
filed joint written statement alleging interalia that the Respondent No. 2 Nawal Kumar
Yadav is the owner and Respondent No. 3 Vijay Kumar Yadav is the driver of
dumper.They have further submitted that this M.A.C.C. has been filed claiming death
compensation by the claimants arising out of accident occurred on 30.11.2009 while
Munshi Marandi was dashed by dumper .They have further pleaded that the said
dumper was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and on the date of
accident i.e. 30.11.2009, the vehicle was insured, hence, the Oriental Insurance
Company is liable to pay compensation. It has been further pleaded that Oriental
Insurance Policy is attached that both Opposite Parties are not liable to pay
compensation, rather the Insurer Company is liable to pay the compensation.

ISSUES
(i) Whether the claim application u/s 166 of M.V. Is an Act filed by claimants
maintainable in law?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation from whom and to what
extent?

21
OBSERVATION

The judgement given in the present case was that the claimants have produced oral as
well as documentary evidences in support of their claim and the entire evidences on
record clearly establish that deceased Munshi Marandi died in road accident, which
was caused by negligent driving of driver of Dumper there is valid cause of action and
thus this issue is also decided in favour of claimants. That the O.P. No. 1, the Branch
Manager of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay Rs. 5,41,250/- with
interest @ 7.5% per annum within two months from the award, failing which the
claimants will be entitled to realize the same under due process of law. The Insurance
Company will have liberty to recover the said amount from the O.P. No. 2 Nawal
Kumar Yadav, the owner of the offending vehicle.

22
 DAY 9 (11-08-2021)

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD , JAMTARA , JHARKHAND

CYBER CASE NO :- 77A OF 2019

STATE THROUGH SAHDEO PRASAD INFORMANT

VS
HALIM ANSARI & OTHERS ACCUSED PERSONS

FACTS
The brief fact of the prosecution case as per FIR is that on reliable information the
police raided the house of the accused and seized Android Mobile Phones ,paytm
debit card , ATM card & SIMs and also arrested persons and the defense case is that
this petitioner has been made accused in the case out of mere suspicion and no
incriminating articles have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner .
There are no ingredients of the offences punishable under 414 , 419, 420, 467, 120B
IPC and sec 66 (B) (C)& (D) of the IT act. In this case 12 witnesses have already been
examined, but due to the spread of COVID 19 Pandemic now the examination of rest
witnesses is not possible. The petitioner has been detained in this case since
21-07-2019.
OBSERVATION :-
This was bail petition filed on behalf of the accused Halim Ansari that the petitioner
is perfectly innocent and he has not committed any offence whatsoever but has falsely
been implicated in this case and has preferred Cr Revision No 463 of 2020 in the
Hon’ble Court which has been rejected vide Order dated on 27-11-2019 & 04-01-2021
respectively that on the basis of self statement of the informant case is registered
under 414 , 420, 467,120B IPC & Sec 66(B) (C) &(D) of the IT Act is registered
which corresponds to cyber case on all sorts of false and concocted facts far from truth
to put the petitioner in harassment. That the petitioner is willing and prepared to
furnish Bail and therefore the petitioner prays to be pleased to release him on bail. The
court adjourned due to covid 19.

NEXT HEARING :- 17-11-2021

23
 DAY 11 (13-08-2021)

IN THE COURT OF SDJM JAMTARA, DISTRICT JAMTARA , JHARKHAND

CASE NO 222-2020

SHAHNAZ BANO COMPLAINANT

VS

SHAHJAHAN ALAM& OTHERS ACCUSED PERSONS

FACTS

The complainant is the legally married wife of the accused no 1 shanaj alam and their
marriage was solemnized on 24-4-2018 at mihijam as per muslim rites and due
observance of ceremonies. At the same time of her marriage the complainant’s father
was told by the other accused persons that the accused no 1 is the government servant.
Believing upon the version of the accused persons in good faith the complainant father
becomes ready to marry the complainant. The accused persons were also pressured to
give dowry of rs 5,00,000/- cash , TV Fridge , Wooden bed, golden ornaments etc all
worth rs 3,00,000/-.After the marriage , the complainant went to the house of the
accused no 1. And started their marital life. But the accused persons were not happy
about the dowry and hence they started demanding rs i lakh only from the complainant
and her father. When the complainant's father showed his inability to pay the desired
dowry in various ways. She was not provided proper food , medicine , clothing and
abuse and assault became routine of her marital life.In such measurable state, she gave
birth to a daughter, who is now aged about 2 years. After the birth of the female child ,
the accused persons again started demanding dowry of rs 1 lakh from the complainant
and her father. The accused persons used to lock her in her room and leave her without
the lights and food. The accused person also used to tell the complainant that she has
been caught by evil spirits and it is very necessary to remove the evil spirit from her.
On 20-07-2020 at about 6;30 AM , the accused persons brutally assaulted the
complainant and drove her out of her house along with her daughter after snatching all
her ornaments and belongings worth 3 lakhs.Having no alternative she took shelter in
her fathers house. The complainant's father tried to settle up the matter but the accused
persons refused to take her back. The accused are guilty of the offences punishable
under u/s 498A, 406, 323, 379/34 , IPC and section ¾ dowry prohibition act.

24
OBSERVATION :-

Here the complainant prays to be pleased to summon the accused persons and may be
tried in court. The hearing was today but court was adjourned due to covid 19. And
another date of hearing was given.

Next hearing :- 29-09-2021

25
 DAY 14 (17-08-2021)

District- Jamtara In the court of District Judge -1, cum Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T
Jamtara.
Present : Kamal Kumar Srivastava, District Judge-I, cum Presiding Officer,

M.A.C.T. Case No. 12/2011

Logi Kisku, Manoj Murmu Claimants.

Vs

The Branch Manager of New India Assurance Company Ltd & others Respondents.

FACTS :-
The relevant fact which has given rise to this compensation case briefly stated is that
on 18.01.2003 at 06:30 P.M. The deceased Khiloni DeviMurmu being labourer, was
going to Chitra Colliery by Dumper from Bastipalajori along with other labourers for
loading the coal, but on the way near Pahargora the said Dumper met with an accident
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, resultantly the deceased and other
labourers sustained injuries and they were brought to Popular Nursing Home, Jamtara
and during treatment, the injured Khiloni Murmu died. It has been further alleged that
the matter was reported to Nala P.S. for the offence u/s 279/337 of IPC against the
driver of Dumper and subsequently section 304(A) of IPC was added vide order dated
15.02.2003 and after completion of investigation, I.O. submitted a charge sheet for the
same offences. It has been further alleged that the deceased was a skilled labourer and
she was aged about 28 years and she used to earn Rs. 5000/- per month. It has been
further mentioned in Claim Application that the offending vehicle was insured with
New India Assurance Company Limited, The deceased was employed as Skilled
Labour at P.S. Chitra, District Deoghar and her yearly income is Rs. 60,000/-. Being
the mother and brother of deceased, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of
Rs. 8,45,000/- from the New India Assurance Company Limited After issuance of
notices and in spite of publication OP. No. 2 and 3 did not appear hence vide order
dated 31.07.2014 ex-parte hearing was proceeded against them.Insurance company
being O.P. No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement mentioning inter- alia that
there was a breach of terms of conditions of policy and claimants have no cause of
action for the present case against the OP .He has submitted that save and except what
have been specifically admitted by this O.P. in the written statement, the O.P. above
named denied all other allegations made in the claim petition and put the claimants to
the strict proof thereof. The present claim petition filed by the claimants against this
O.P. is wrong, misconceived and not tenable in law as well as not maintainable in its

26
form. He has further pleaded that the claim petition is hit by principles of waiver,
estoppel, acquiescence, the applicants have no locus standi to file the claim petition
and have got no cause of action for the present claim nor they are entitled to get any
claim amount from this O.P. It has been further pleaded that the vehicle in question
involved in the accident is Dumper bearing Reg. No. JH09B/5125, which is Goods
Carrier Commercial Vehicle and for commercial vehicle valid and effective vehicular
documents are essential viz. Driving Licence, R.C. Book, C.F. Policy, Certificate,
Route Permit and these documents are the mandatory requirement of law and the
owner of the offending vehicle violates the terms and conditions of Policy U/s 149
M.V. Act as such this respondent is not liable to make payment of any compensation
to the claimants rather the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants. The statements made in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the
claim petition are not known to this respondent, as such denied and claimants are
required to prove the same. It has been further pleaded that the statements made in
para 17 of the claim petition are partly correct, which is the address of policy issuing
office of Kolkata D.O. of the respondent and for want of details of policy certificate, it
is not possible for the respondent to ascertain whether the policy was issued or not as
such denied. The statements made of the claim application are not known to this
respondent as such denied and claimants are required to prove the same. The amount
of compensation claimed of the claim petition is excessive, imaginary concocted and
incorrect, as such denied and claimants are required to prove the same and the same is
to be assessed by the learned Tribunal in the light of facts and circumstances of the
case. It has been further pleaded that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of
the Policy and this O.P. No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation rather it is the
owner, who is liable to pay the compensation, hence the claim petition against this
respondent/O.P. is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
ISSUES (i) Is the case maintainable in law? (ii) Whether the claimants have cause of
action for the suit? (iii)Whether the claimants are entitled to the reliefs claimed and to
what extent?

JUDGEMENT

From perusal of record, it appears that claimants have made party the owner, driver
and Insurer of the offending vehicle, as the Opposite Parties in this case. As it has
been claimed that the deceased was unmarried father-less, therefore, her mother and
brother have filed this claim case against the Opposite Parties. The O.P. has not
adduced any evidence to contradict the assertions of claimants. Since the offending
vehicle was insured by the O.P. No. 1, as it has been discussed here-in-above. Hence,
the claimants have rightly made the party and have valid cause of action for this case
and the present case is maintainable. Accordingly, Issues No. (i) and (ii) are decided in

27
favour of claimants. So, in this case, Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation amount and since there has been a breach of policy, the Insurance
Company will have right to recover from the Insured the amount paid to the
claimants.In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs.
D.T.C (2009) 6 SCC 121, U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362;
Reshma Kumari vs. Madan Mohan (2013) 9 SCC 65 and in Santosh Devi vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd. the amount of claim is calculated.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the O.P. No. 1 Insurance Company is liable
to pay the amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- with an interest of 7% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition till its realization.

28
 DAY 15 (18-08-2021)

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE , SENIOR DIVISION 1 JAMTARA DISTRICT

O.S NO. 37-2013

SAVITRI MONDAL & OTHERS PLAINTIFFS

VS

AMRIT MONDAL & OTHERS DEFENDANTS

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 22 , RULE 3 CPC

The petition was on the behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff no 8 died on
15/08/2021 leaving her widow , two sons and two daughters as his legal heirs and
successors . And it is essential to delete the name of plaintiff no 8 from the cause title
of the plaintiff and name of his widow , two sons and two daughters be substituted in
his place.

That the plaintiff no 11 died on 25-12-2020 leaving behind her four daughters as her
heirs and successors. And it was essential to delete the name of the plaintiff from the
cause title of the plaintiff and names of the daughters be substituted in her place.

That the plaintiff no 14 died on 15-01-2021 leaving behind her two sons who are
plaintiff no 12 and 13 of this suit and three daughters as his successors and legal
heirs.and it is essential to delete the name of the plaintiff and his daughters be
substituted in his place . And the amendment of the plaint shall not change the nature
and character of the suit and their relief also remains the same. Therefore here prays to
delete the names of the said plaintiff from the cause title and their legal heirs name be
substituted in their place and the plaintiff should be allowed to be amended.

After hearing the counsel for the party this application was allowed in the interest of
justice and hence Hon’ble justice ordered the amendment .

NEXT HEARING :- 21-09-2021

29
 DAY 16 (20-08-2021)

IN THE COURT OF THE SDJM , DISTRICT JAMTARA

CASE NO ;- 28 -2021 u/s 279, 337, 304A IPC

STATE

VS

DRIVER OF PICKUP NO JH 21K 7864 ACCUSED

IN MATTER OF AN APPLICATION u/s 457 OF CrPC FOR RELEASE OF SEIZED

PROPERTY ON SURETY BOND

OBSERVATION :-

The humble petition on behalf of the petitioner that he is the owner of the vehicle and
the vehicle is the private vehicle and it is kept seized in an open sun and rain and due
to seizure of the same the petitioner is suffering from immense difficulties in his
personal work in want of his vehicle. That he undertakes that he shall not transfer or
dispose of the vehicle till the disposal of the case. The petitioner also undertakes that
he shall not dismantle or discolour the vehicle till the disposal of the case or without
prior permission of the court and shall also produce his vehicle in court if and when it
is required by court in the course of trial of the case. And is willing to and prepared to
furnish surety bond for the release of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the court.

And the petitioner here prays that the court be pleased to release the vehicle on surety
bond.

30
 DAY 17 (21-08-2021)

IN THE COURT OF SDJM JAMTARA , DIS :- JAMTARA ,JHARKHAND

CRIMINAL MISC CASE NO 146 OF 2020

PREM SAGAR MONDOL PETITIONER

Vs

ABDUL WAHID ANSARI AND OTHERS DEFENDANTS

In the matter of an application u/s 20/42 of the santhal parganas tenancy act 1949

FACTS
The petitioner is the jamabandi raiyat of mouja sakalpur and is a law abiding citizen.
That the opposition parties are turbulent lathial and land grabbers. That the plot no.
263 classification bari II class having area of 66 decimals appartening to AKG no 6 is
recorded in the name of badul mandal in the last survey settlement record. The
recorded raiyat badul mondal died leaving behind his two sons janeshwar mondal and
kedar mondal as his legal heirs and successors. Janeshwar mondal died leaving behind
his three sons chatti mondal, santu mondal and ranjan mondal as his legal heirs.
Petitioner is the son of santu mondal. Here petitioner is the legal heirs of the land .
The opposite party are rank outsiders and they have captured the land of petitioner
through muscle power and fraudulent means to defeat the SPT act .OPs have illegally
constructed a masjid and two rooms with asbestos attached over the land of the
petitioner by force in utter violation of law. That the apprehension of breach of peace
existes due to illegal and criminal acts of the members of the second party. The
members of the second party were liable to be bound under u/s 107 CrPC.

OBSERVATION :- In the view of the facts and circumstances , the member of the
1st party submits that his show cause be accepted and he may be discharged and the
members of the II party be bound down to maintain peace and harmony by executing .

Next Hearing :- 01-09-2021

31
 DAY 18 (23-08-2021)

In the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara

Present :- Devesh Kumar Tripathi

A.B.P. No. 85/2021

Prahlad Mandal Vs. State & Dilip Kumar Mandal Vs State

FACTS
The anticipatory bail petition No. 85/2021 is filed on behalf of the accused/ petitioner
Prahlad Mandal and anticipatory bail petition No.86/2021 is filed on behalf of the
accused/petitioner Dilip Kumar Mandal who are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Karmatanr P.S. Case No.19/2021 for the offences alleged to have
been committed u/Ss 147/148/149/341/323/ 353/427/440/504/506 of IPC is pressed
for hearing through Video Conferencing. A copy of aforesaid petitions have already
been furnished to the learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Allegations
against the accused persons as per self statement of Officer-in-charge, Karmatanr
namely Rajnish Anand is that on 07.03.2021 he got a confidential information that
one Sukhan Mandal of village Kuruwa running a shop at his house wherein he has
stocked illegal liquor and sells them to various antisocial elements. On such
information, a raiding team was prepared, comprising the informant and other Police
personnel and said raiding team reached the shop of Sukhan Mandal at village
Kuruwa at about 21.00 hours. It has been further alleged that upon seeing the police,
Sukhan Mandal and his son Ashok Mandal along with other customers fled away
taking advantage of the night. Subsequently the shop of Sukhan Mandal was searched,
whereupon bottles of different liquors were recovered which were duly seized by the
Police. The informant has further alleged that after seizure when the Police team was
returning to the police station, Sukhan Mandal, Ashok Mandal, Prahlad Mandal, Murti
Devi, Kunti Devi, Bikash Mandal, Pramod Mandal, Rajen Mandal along with other
15-20 and females blocked their way, started threatening them and attacked with
Lathi/Danda and started abusing and assaulting the Police party. They further tried to
snatch away the seized articles from the Police van and damaged the Police van. The
informant alleged that with great difficulty he managed to pacify the assailants and
returned to the police station with the seized articles. Hence this case. Heard both
sides through video conferencing. There is no complaint on either side with regard to
audio video connectivity.

32
OBSERVATION :-

Hence considering the totality and facts and circumstances and in the absence of
sufficient material against these two accused/ petitioners, Court is inclined to take a
lenient view and enlarge these two accused petitioners namely Dilip Kumar Mandal
and Prahlad Mandal on anticipatory bail on the condition that both the petitioners will
cooperate in the trial and shall not leave the District without permission of the Trial
Court. Hence prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bails are hereby allowed. The
accused/petitioners namely Dilip Kumar Mandal and Prahlad Mandal are directed to
surrender before the Trial Court in connection with Karmatarn P.S.Case No. 19/2021
within 15 days of this order and they will be released on anticipatory bail after
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each on the event of their arrest by the police or surrender before the Trial Court.

33
 Day 19 (24-08-2021)

In the Court of Judicial Magistrate- Ist Class, Jamtara. Present : Arvind Kumar,
Judicial Magistrate- Ist Class, Jamtara.

G.R. Case No. 358/2014

The State of Jharkhand (through: Hasimuddin Ansari, Informant)

………..........Prosecution.

Versus

Rajaram Mandal ............. Accused Persons.

Charge u/s 406/420 of the IPC.

FACTS
The prosecution story in brief is that the informant Hasimuddin Ansari filed a
complaint petition before the then C.J.Jamtara alleging that the complainant runs a
medical shop at Chengaidih under the name and style Shahil Medical agency. The
accused is a medical representative of Moral Pharma Company. In march 2013 the
accused requested the complainant leave the job of M.R. and keep him in his shop as
salesman. The complainant has kept the accused as a salesman since
01.04.2013.Thereafter, the accused used to sell medicine from the shop of the
complainant in cash as well as on credit and also started collecting the credit amount
from different persons but intentionally did not deposit the same to the complainant.
When the complainant asked the accused to give him accounts of the shop then the
accused was differing on the matter. On 28.10.2013 the accused gave account to the
complainant in which the total sum of Rs. 53,200/- has been misappropriated by the
accused and the accused give a hand not of the said dues amount. The complainant
asked the accused to deposit the entire amount, then the accused assured that he will
soon deposit the entire amount but the accused left the job of the complainant's shop.
On 23.02.2014 at 9:00 A.M. The complainant asked the money from the accused in
front of his shop, whereupon the accused became furious and pushed the complainant
and refused to return the said amount in presence of witnesses. The said petition has
been transferred to P.S. for registration of F.I.R. u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On the basis of
report of occurrence On the basis of report of occurrence has been registered. Police
investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet vide charge-sheet, against the
accused on the basis of which the then learned C.J.M., took cognizance of offence

34
punishable u/s 406/420 of the IPC., against the accused. After giving sufficient
opportunity to the prosecution as well as after taking various steps by the Court to
procure the evidence, evidence for prosecution was closed. The record has been
Prosecution has examined only two witnesses in the present case namely P.W.1
Mustafa Ansari and P.W. 2 Hasimuddin Ansari. Defence has not adduced any
evidence in this present case. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement u/s
313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded in which the accused persons have denied the evidence
put before them and claimed themselves to be innocent.Now the present question for
consideration before this Court is whether the prosecution have been able to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubts?

OBSERVATION :-

The judgement was given on this case considering submission of both the learned
counsels along with the analysis of deposition of witness and on perusal of case
record, I find and hold that P.W. 1 who is hearsay witness. He has no knowledge about
the incident. P.W. 2 who is the informant in this case clearly stated that he has
voluntarily compromised this case with the accused and a compromise petition is there
on the record and he also stated that he obtained his money from the accused. No
other witnesses were examined in this case. So, this is a case of no evidence.
Therefore, in the light of that money which have been obtained by the informant from
the accused as well as compromise, Hon'ble justice of the opinion that prosecution
story is not proved and accordingly, accused namely Rajaram Mandal is hereby
acquitted from the charges u/s 406/420 of the IPC. Bailors are discharged from their
respective liabilities, if any.

35
 DAY 20 (25-08-2021)

District: Jamtara. In the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) -III, Jamtara
Present :- Prabhakar Singh Civil Judge (Senior Division)-III Jamtara

T.(P) S. No. 19/2005

Bablu Rawani Plaintiff.

Vs

Ashok Rawani& others Defendants.

The plaintiff has brought this suit for the partition of schedules “A” and “B” properties
which are mentioned in the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in his plaint is
that parties to the suit are Hindus governed by Mitakshara School in the matter of
inheritance and succession. All the parties in this suit are successors-in-interest of
Khedu Rawani. The properties described in Schedules “A” and “B” below are
recorded in the exclusive name and possession of Khedu Rawani during the last
Survey Settlement. The recorded tenant Khedu Rawani died in 1959 leaving behind
only daughter Rani Rawani while his widow Sukhi Rawani predeceased her husband
Khedu Rawani. After the death of Khedu Rawani, Rani Rawani became owner of the
suit properties and continued to possess the same exclusively. Rani Rawani was
married to one Jagdish Rawani of Tilabad under Jamtara P.S. and since her marriage,
Rani has been living at his father's house and used to possess all his properties. Rani
Rawani died in 1975 leaving behind three sons namely Biswanath Rawani, Chhotu
Rawani, Ashok Rawani and three daughters namely Debjani Debi, Niharmuni Debi
and Sandhya Debi as her heirs and successors. All the sons and daughters jointly
succeeded the interest of their mother Rani Rawani. Biswanath Rawani (eldest son of
Rani Rawani) died in 1983 leaving behind his widow Udashi Debi and three daughters
and one son (Plaintiff herein) as his next heirs and successors. Chhotu Rawani died in
or about 2002 leaving behind his widow Girija Debi and one son minor Nabin Rawani
and two daughters Sangita Rawani and minor Subhadra Rawani. After the death of
Biswanath Rawani, his widow Udasi Debi also died in the year 2003 leaving behind
one son (plaintiff) and three daughters. Among the three daughters of Biswanath
Rawani, Baijanti Debi died issueless and Daymanti Devi died in unmarried state. The
plaintiff and his sister Basanti Debi (proforma defendant) succeeded to the interest of
their father in the joint property and entered into possession along with the principal
defendants. The plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession of the properties in
suit. As the plaintiff is feeling inconvenience in possessing the properties in suit, so on

36
01.05.2005 he demanded amicable partition of the properties in suit from the
defendants but the principal defendants refused to do so. The plaintiff has got 1/6th
share in the properties in suit along with Proforma defendant and the Principal
Defendants got 1/6th share each except minors.Defendants appeared and filed their
written statements. They have submitted that the present suit as framed is not
maintainable in law and it is fit to be dismissed. The plaintiff has no cause of action as
alleged in the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation, waiver and acquiescence and
under principle of estoppel. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This
court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit in view of facts that valuation of suit
properties mentioned in the plaint is purely imaginary one and valued at arbitrarily to
bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Issues (i) Whether the suit
is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action for filing this
suit? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of the necessary
parties? (iv) Whether there is unity of title and unity of possession of parties over the
suit land?

OBSERVATION :-

The judgement was given that all the issues in this case have been decided in favour of
the plaintiff. He along with proforma defendant Basanti Rawani represent the branch
of Biswanath Rawani. Biswanath Rawani is one among the 6th children of Rani
Rawani. Plaintiff Bablu Rawani along with his sister Basanti Rawani become entitled
to get his 1/6th share in suit properties. By order dated 03.07.2013, court has permitted
Defendant No. 6 Debjani Rawani to relinquish her share in favour of Defendant No. 3
Sangeeta Rawani. Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed consequently this issue is
also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. that the suit be and is
decreed in favour of the plaintiff on contest with cost. Plaintiff is entitled to one sixth
share in suit properties. Let the preliminary decree be prepared accordingly.

37
 DAY 21 (26-08-2021)

District:- Jamtara. In the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-III, Jamtara.

Present :- Devesh Kumar Tripathi Addl. Sessions Judge-III Jamtara. Sessions

Trial No. 107/2021

Purnima Dutta Prosecution.

&

Kartik Dutta & others Accused Persons .

FACTS
The above named accused persons stand charged and facing trial for having
committed offences u/Ss. 323,379 of IPC and 3/4 of WitchCraft Act. The case of the
complainant as narrated in her written complaint petition briefly stated is that one year
ago Kartik Dutta borrowed Rs. 6000/- from the complainant to meet his family
expenses with a promise to return the same after one year. But in spite of repeated
request and demand, the accused failed to pay the said sum of Rs. 6000/-. It was
alleged that on 06.07.2017 at 08.00 A.M. to avoid payment of Rs. 6000/- the accused
persons started quarrelling with the complainant and started abusing her by calling her
witch. On protest, the accused persons became furious and started assaulting her by
catching her hair and threw her on the ground. It has been further alleged that all the
accused persons assaulted the complainant Purnima Dutta, with fists and slaps and
snatched a Silver Chain from her neck and she also sustained injuries. It has also been
alleged that accused persons have publicly denounced her that she is a witch and
defamed her prestige in the eyes and estimation of the PWs, villagers and the public in
general. On the basis of the written complaint of the complainant, Ld. SDJM
registered the instant case as P.C.R. Case No.843/2017 dated 08.12.2017 u/Ss.
323,379 of IPC and 3/4 of WitchCraft Act. of the IPC against the above named
accused persons finding the prima-facie case against the accused persons.. Thereafter
the cognizance of offences u/Ss 323, 379 of IPC and 3/4 of WitchCraft Act was taken
up by the S.D.J.M, Jamtara vide order dt. 06.04.2018. As the counter case bearing ST
No. 115/2018 was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court therefore this case was
also committed to the Court of Sessions for its trial along with the said counter case by
learned A.C.J.M, Jamtara on 10.03.2021 as per transfer order dated 08.03.2021 of Ld.

38
Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara. The charges u/Ss 323, 379 of IPC and 3/4 of
WitchCraft Act were framed against the accused persons on 16.07.2021. The contents
of charges were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they had claimed
their innocence and pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed to be tried. 6. The statements of
the accused persons were recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2021. The accused
persons had stated during the course of recording their statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C.
that they are innocent and have entered voluntarily into compromise with the opposite
party. 7. The plea of the accused persons while answering the questions put to them at
the time of framing of charges against them as well as at the time of their examination
u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of innocence and voluntary compromise with the
informant and others witnesses respectively.

OBSERVATION

Judgement was given in this case that Learned Addl. P.P. as well as Ld. Counsel
appearing on behalf of the complaint has fairly conceded that both parties have
voluntarily compromised this case and joint compromise petition has been filed before
the court and the counter case has also been compromised. There is no any averment
with regard to allegation under Prohibition of Practices of witchCraft Act. Under these
facts and circumstances, accused persons are hereby acquitted from the charges
framed u/Ss 323,379 of IPC and 3/4 of WitchCraft Act on the basis of compromise.
Following their acquittal in this case, they are further discharged from the liabilities of
the bail bond filed on behalf of them in this case and their bailors are also discharged
from their respective sureties.

39
40
41