D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Koderma, in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2005 whereby, the present Appellant has been punished for the offence punishable under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment.
(2.) HAVING heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is prima facie case against the present Appellant. There are enough evidences against the present Appellant . As the criminal appeal is already pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on records, but, suffice it to say that the previously I.A. No. 2178 of 2009 was preferred for suspension of sentence, which was dismissed on merits by a detailed speaking order dated 16th November, 2009. Paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 whereof read as under: Perused the record and proceedings of the trial court. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is, prima facie, case against the Appellant accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record. Suffice it to say that one businessman namely, Kamal Kedia, was abducted and sizeable amount of ransom money was demanded by hatching conspiracy by the accused persons which were tried in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2005 as well as there are two more accused who are still absconding as on today.
(3.) LOOKING to the evidences on record that one witness i.e. P.W.12, who has gone with money as ransom money has identified this present Appellant -accused.Looking to the evidences on record, there is enough material against the present applicantaccused. Even, the ransom amount has been recovered which is totally at Rs. 4,20,000/ ( out of this, sizable amount was recovered from present accused viz. Ganesh Singh), when the Appellant accused was in the house of another coaccused namely Tulsi Yadav, the house was raided and there was firing by accused side, upon the police also. As separate case has been registered for recovery of ransom money and firing upon the police. Money has also been identified by P.W.12. Likewise, looking to the deposition of P.W.1, who is informant and other prosecutionwitnesses, there is a, prima facie, case against the Appellant -accused Looking to the gravity of offence, the quantum of punishment and the manner in which the whole incident has taken place and looking to the role played by the Appellantaccused and also looking to the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court, to the Appellant -accused.;