{"id":94392,"date":"2009-05-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-05T07:02:31","modified_gmt":"2018-02-05T01:32:31","slug":"sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009<\/div>\n
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 435 OF 2003\n\n                  Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated\n            4.2.2003 and 7.2.2003 respectively passed by Shri Awadhesh\n            Nandan, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 ,\n            Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 485 of 1998.\n\n            Sukat Bhuiya @ Rameshwar Bhuiya                -----------Appellant\n\n\n            The State of Jharkhand               -----------Respondent\n\n            For the Appellant:           Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate\n                                         Ms. Lina Shakti\n            For the State:               Mr. V.S. Jha, APP\n\n                                 PRESENT\n                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI\n                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR\n\n\nBy Court:         Sole appellant Sukat Bhuiya @ Rameshwar Bhuiya has filed<\/pre>\n
     this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence<\/p>\n
     dated 4.2.2003 and 7.2.2003 respectively passed by Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
     Judge, FTC-1, Palamau at Daltonganj in S. T. No. 485 of 1998 whereby<\/p>\n
     and whereunder he was convicted under section 302 of the IPC and<\/p>\n
     sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
     2.           The case of prosecution, in short, as per the fardbeyan of<\/p>\n
     P.W. 1, is that in the evening of 3.8.1997 at about 5 p.m. she along with her<\/p>\n
     husband was sitting at their door. The appellant Sukat Bhuiya @<\/p>\n
     Rameshwar Bhuiya alongwith          Raju Pandey and Suresh Bhuiya came<\/p>\n
     armed with tangi (axe). They caught hold of her husband and took away<\/p>\n
     abusing and alleging him involved in black magic practice ( OJHAI). It was<\/p>\n
     further alleged that they had assaulted her husband with the wooden part of<\/p>\n
     Tangi ( axe) and        behind the house of Janeshar and Bhageshar they<\/p>\n
     pushed him on the ground and severed his head by inflicting tangi blow on<\/p>\n
     his neck. The informant had followed the accused persons while they were<\/p>\n
     taking away her husband and witnessed the occurrence. After finishing her<\/p>\n
     husband, the accused persons fled away. She raised alarm but no body<\/p>\n
     was there to listen her, as that was the day of Aashehar bazaar and the<\/p>\n
     villagers had gone for marketing.\n<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
3.           On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, the police instituted Panki<\/p>\n
P.S. Case No. 24 of 1997 dated 4.8.1997 under section 302\/34 of the IPC<\/p>\n
and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, police submitted<\/p>\n
charge sheet against the appellant under section 302\/34 of the IPC showing<\/p>\n
co-accused Raju Pandey and Suresh Bhuiya as absconder. Cognizance of<\/p>\n
the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions<\/p>\n
as the offence is exclusively triable by the court of sessions.<\/p>\n
4.            The charge was framed against the appellant under section<\/p>\n
302\/34 of the IPC and the same was read over and explained to him to<\/p>\n
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
5.           Prosecution had examined altogether four witnesses in support<\/p>\n
of its case. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. in which his defence is of total denial. The defence had also<\/p>\n
examined one witness in support of its case.\n<\/p>\n
6.            The court below in conclusion of trial convicted and sentenced<\/p>\n
the appellant as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
7.            Mr. A.K. Kashyap learned senior counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
urged that in the instance case, the unexplained delay of three days in<\/p>\n
sending the FIR to the court of CJM casts a serious doubt in the<\/p>\n
correctness of the FIR, particularly the time and date of its recording. It<\/p>\n
goes to show that name of this appellant had been introduced in the case<\/p>\n
subsequently on due deliberation. He further submitted that though<\/p>\n
independent witnesses were present but they have not been examined.<\/p>\n
P.W. 2 is not named in the FIR as an eye witness of the occurrence and<\/p>\n
therefore the claim of P.W. 2 that she witnessed the occurrence cannot be<\/p>\n
believed. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 is not wholly<\/p>\n
reliable and acceptable and therefore her sole testimony cannot be the<\/p>\n
basis for convicting the appellant. Learned court below wrongly convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment. The same cannot<\/p>\n
sustain in law.\n<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
8.            On the other hand, learned Additional P.P., appearing for the<\/p>\n
State, submitted that the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2, who are the eye<\/p>\n
witnesses of the occurrence, is wholly reliable and free from any infirmity. It<\/p>\n
is not necessary that each and every fact be incorporated in the FIR. Only<\/p>\n
because the name of P.W. 2 does not find place in the FIR, her evidence<\/p>\n
cannot be discarded and\/or excluded from the arena of consideration. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that it is true that the FIR was received in the court of<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate on 7.8.1997 i.e. after three days of institution of<\/p>\n
FIR but that by itself does not go to suggest false implication. He submitted<\/p>\n
that the inquest was prepared on 4.8.1997 and in the said inquest report;<\/p>\n
the P.S. case number was mentioned. The defence had not brought<\/p>\n
anything on record to show that the P.W. 1 or 2 had any personal grudge<\/p>\n
against the appellant to falsely implicate him. No suggestion was given to<\/p>\n
these witnesses that the FIR was lodged later on with a view to falsely<\/p>\n
implicate the appellant. The delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate,<\/p>\n
thus, is not a material factor and it can be ignored. He submitted that in the<\/p>\n
FIR itself, it is mentioned that though the informant had raised alarm non<\/p>\n
had turned up as the day of occurrence was a market day and the villagers<\/p>\n
had gone to market. There was no other person available to witness the<\/p>\n
occurrence. Under the said circumstance there was no independent eye<\/p>\n
witness who could have be examined by the prosecution. There is no<\/p>\n
illegality and\/or infirmities in the judgment of court below warranting<\/p>\n
interference by this court.\n<\/p>\n
9.            Having heard the submission, we have gone through the<\/p>\n
record of the case. P.W. 3 is the doctor who conducted the P.M.<\/p>\n
examination on the dead body of Kailash Bhuiya and found that the neck of<\/p>\n
the deceased was cut and the head was completely separated from the rest<\/p>\n
of the body. The doctor opined that the injury was ante mortem in nature<\/p>\n
and caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon such as tangi. The doctor also<\/p>\n
opined that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock due to<\/p>\n
the above mentioned injury. There is nothing in the cross examination of
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
this witness to disbelieve his testimony Thus, by the said medical evidence<\/p>\n
the prosecution has proved that the deceased Kailash Bhuiya died because<\/p>\n
his head was cut and severed from the rest of his body by inflicting injury<\/p>\n
from a heavy sharp cutting weapon.\n<\/p>\n
10.          Now the question remains to be decided as to whether the<\/p>\n
appellant was the author of the said crime ? P.W. 1 (informant) and P.W. 2<\/p>\n
(daughter of informant) had claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses of<\/p>\n
the occurrence. Both the aforesaid witnesses had stated that on the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence in the evening at 5 p.m. they were sitting at their door alongwith<\/p>\n
the deceased. At that time the appellant along with Suresh Bhuiya and Raju<\/p>\n
Pandey arrived with tangi in their hands and they caught hold of the<\/p>\n
deceased and dragged him on the village road. Witnesses further stated<\/p>\n
that they followed them and witnessed the accused persons thrashing and<\/p>\n
pushing him on the ground and giving heavy tangi blow on the neck of the<\/p>\n
deceased and severing his head from the body. From perusal of cross<\/p>\n
examination of these witnesses, we find that their evidence remains intact<\/p>\n
and the defence could not elicit anything on which their evidence can be<\/p>\n
discarded.\n<\/p>\n
11.          The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W. 2 be excluded from the arena of consideration, because<\/p>\n
she was not named in the FIR as an eye witness is not aceptable. It is well<\/p>\n
settled that FIR is not the encyclopedia of entire prosecution case. Even if<\/p>\n
some important fact is not mentioned in the FIR, the same can not be a<\/p>\n
ground to exclude it from consideration. The said fact can be considered<\/p>\n
with other evidence for coming to a right conclusion. Only because P.W. 2<\/p>\n
has not been named in the FIR as an eye witness, in our view, her evidence<\/p>\n
cannot be discarded. Moreover, from perusal of cross examination of P.W.<\/p>\n
2, we find that the defence had not challenged her presence at the place of<\/p>\n
occurrence. Even no suggestion was given to this witness that she was not<\/p>\n
present at the place of occurrence or she had not witnessed the<\/p>\n
occurrence. Under the aforesaid circumstance, we find that the evidence of
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
P.W. 2 remained unchallenged and, therefore, there is no ground to<\/p>\n
exclude her evidence from the arena of consideration.<\/p>\n
12.           Now, coming to the next submission of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution, it<\/p>\n
is relevant to mention that the informant P.W. 1 categorically stated that<\/p>\n
though she raised alarm, none had come as the persons residing in the<\/p>\n
locality were not present. P.W. 2 had also stated that except them no other<\/p>\n
person arrived at the place of occurrence, even after raising alarm by them.<\/p>\n
Under the aforesaid circumstance, in our view, non examination of any<\/p>\n
independent witness, is not an infirmity in the instant case. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that even the witnesses in whose presence fardbeyan was recorded, had<\/p>\n
not been examined. In our view, since the aforesaid two witnesses had not<\/p>\n
seen the occurrence, therefore, non examination of those witnesses have<\/p>\n
no fatal consequence. It is well settled that it is not necessary to examine all<\/p>\n
the witnesses. It is the quality not the quantity of evidence that matters.<\/p>\n
Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh and others Vs, State of Punjab<\/p>\n
reported in AIR 1976 SC 2304.\n<\/p>\n
13.           The next contention of learned counsel for the appellant that<\/p>\n
there is inordinate delay in sending the FIR in the court of magistrate and<\/p>\n
there is reasonable doubt of false implication of the appellant after due<\/p>\n
deliberation is also not acceptable. From the perusal of record, we find that<\/p>\n
the defence has not brought anything on record to show that P.W. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
have any malice to falsely implicate the appellant. Even no suggestion was<\/p>\n
given to P.W. 1 (informant) that the FIR was lodged later on with a view to<\/p>\n
falsely implicate the appellant. We, further find that the inquest report was<\/p>\n
prepared by the I.O. on 4.8.1997 just after the recording of fardbeyan and in<\/p>\n
the said inquest report; the P.S. number of the case was mentioned. In the<\/p>\n
inquest report the cause of death was also mentioned. The decision of the<\/p>\n
Apex Court in Thanedar Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 1<\/p>\n
SC 487 has no application to the facts of this case. In the aforesaid decision
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
number of FIR and crime number were not mentioned in the inquest report,<\/p>\n
whereas in this case P.S. number was given in the inquest report. In that<\/p>\n
case specific suggestion was given to the witnesses that the FIR was<\/p>\n
prepared after 2 or 3 days of the occurrence, but in the instant case no such<\/p>\n
suggestion was given to any witness. Under the said circumstance the law<\/p>\n
laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable in this case. It has been<\/p>\n
held by the Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh and others Vs, State of<\/p>\n
Punjab reported in AIR 1976 SC 2304 that delay in dispatch of FIR to a<\/p>\n
magistrate is not a circumstance to throw out the prosecution case in its<\/p>\n
entirety.\n<\/p>\n
14.           As noticed above, we find that the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
is trustworthy and acceptable. There is nothing in their evidence on which<\/p>\n
their credibility can be impeached. The presence of these witnesses, at the<\/p>\n
place of occurrence, has not been challenged by the defence. Their<\/p>\n
evidence further finds full corroboration from the medical evidence. There is<\/p>\n
nothing on record to show that the aforesaid two witnesses have any<\/p>\n
personal grudge and\/or enmity to falsely implicate the appellant. In that<\/p>\n
view, delay in dispatching the FIR to the magistrate has no impact on the<\/p>\n
case of prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
15.          We, accordingly, come to the conclusion that the prosecution<\/p>\n
has been able to establish the charge leveled against the appellant beyond<\/p>\n
the shadow of all reasonable doubt and he has been rightly convicted by<\/p>\n
learned court below. There is no illegality and\/or infirmities in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment warranting any interference by this Court.<\/p>\n
16.          In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                 (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                 (Prashant Kumar, J.)
\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi
\nDated 14 \/05 \/2009
\nSharda\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009 CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 435 OF 2003 Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.2.2003 and 7.2.2003 respectively passed by Shri Awadhesh Nandan, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1 , Palamau at Daltonganj in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-05T01:32:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-05T01:32:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2005,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-05T01:32:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-05T01:32:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-05T01:32:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009"},"wordCount":2005,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009","name":"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-05T01:32:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukat-bhuiyan-rameshwar-bhuiya-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-14-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukat Bhuiyan @ Rameshwar Bhuiya vs State Of Jharkhand on 14 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}