RAM PRASAD BIRHOR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAKESH KUMAR — Cr.A(SJ)/345/2019

Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: JHHC010100662019

Filing Number

Cr.A(SJ)/7302/2019

Filing Date

27-Mar-2019

Registration No

Cr.A(SJ)/345/2019

Registration Date

30-Mar-2019

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE ( 121 )

Sub-Category

Section 374(2) & 389(1) 389(2) ( 16 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAM PRASAD BIRHOR

    Adv. NIKHILESH KR CHATTERJEE,SHIV PRASAD,SHIV PRASAD, ,SHIV PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - RAKESH KUMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh KumarView PDF

    Case Summary: Ram Prasad Birhor v. State of Jharkhand The Jharkhand High Court affirmed Ram Prasad Birhor's conviction for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 12-13-year-old girl under IPC Sections 366, 354 and POCSO Act Section 8, finding the victim's statement reliable despite procedural defects. However, the court reduced his sentence from 3 years imprisonment to time already served (2 years, 4 months, 17 days), noting he received an unfair trial due to lack of legal representation and absence of witness cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-May-2019

    Hon'ble Mr.justice Rajesh ShankarView PDF

  4. 24-Apr-2019

    Lawazima

    Registrar (Judicial)

  5. 27-Mar-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. Cr.A(SJ)/345/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Ram Prasad Birhor v. State of Jharkhand The Jharkhand High Court affirmed Ram Prasad Birhor's conviction for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 12-13-year-old girl under IPC Sections 366, 354 and POCSO Act Section 8, finding the victim's statement reliable despite procedural defects. However, the court reduced his sentence from 3 years imprisonment to time already served (2 years, 4 months, 17 days), noting he received an unfair trial due to lack of legal representation and absence of witness cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case