D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been admitted vide order dated 3rd January, 2012. Records and proceedings of the S.C. No. 211 of 2008/S.T. No. 15 of 2011 was called for from the trial court to appreciate the argument of suspension of sentence.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants for the prayer of suspension of sentence awarded to the present appellants, who are original accused nos. 3 and 4. These two appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced for Life Imprisonment by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2nd December, 2011 and 5th December, 2011 respectively in S.C. No. 211 of 2008/ S.T. No. 15 of 2011. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima facie, case against the present appellants. As the criminal appeal is pending for final hearing, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record. Suffice it so say that the incidence has taken place on 29th June, 2008 at about 11:00 p.m. at the house of the deceased. Looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the father informant (P.W.13) and sondeceased were sleeping in the same room. The accused came during night hours with weapons in their hands and assaulted the deceased, who was murdered on the spot. The role played by these two appellants was also narrated by the eyewitness, who is fatherinformant (P.W.13). Clearly, immediate is the F.I.R. i.e. on 30th June, 2008 at about 06:30 a.m. by P.W.13, who is the eyewitness. All the four accused including these two appellants were named in the F.I.R. The deposition of the eyewitness is getting enough corroboration by the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.7, who have rushed immediately at the room, where, the incidence has taken place and they saw the accused including these two appellants running away. Moreover, medical evidence given by Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary (P.W.9) is also getting enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W.13, who is the eyewitness of the incident. Looking to these evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima facie, case against the present appellants. Moreover, looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present appellants are involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the present appellants by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the appellants have not caused any injury upon the body of the deceased and, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court may be suspended. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that these two appellants have played vital role in commissioning the murder of the deceased, as stated by the eyewitness. They have been punished for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is not accepted by this Court.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts, there is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence and, hence, the same is not accepted by this Court.;