- (1.) The present Interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 389(2) of Cr.P.C. praying for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VIII, Giridih on 22nd August, 2006 in Sessions Trial Case No 243 of 2004, whereby, the applicant (original appellant) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 364A I.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code and further to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the same, l/d he is further sentenced to undergo S.I. for two months for the same offence. He is not sentenced separately for the offence u/s 120B I.P.C. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant.
(2.) Counsel for the applicant has argued out at length on several aspects of the matter.
(3.) As the criminal appeal, i.e. Cr. Appeal No. 1492 of 2006 (D.B.) is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but suffice it to say that looking to the deposition of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 enough evidence is there on record against the applicant. This is the second time the applicant is making prayer for suspension of sentence as previously also application for suspension of sentence through I.A. No. 1779 of 2009 filed by the present applicant was rejected and this Court, while dismissing the said prayer vide order dated 14th September, 2009, in paragraph nos. 4, 5, 6 as well as 8, has observed as under:-- 4. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analysing the evidences on record. Suffice it to say that from the very beginning of the kidnapping, the applicant-accused was with the victim boy, as stated by the prosecution witnesses, who had taken the victim boy at the river side and thereafter, P.W. 3 was also taken to the various places, including at the resident of the applicant-accused, where he was kept for eleven days and, therefore, no question of misidentification by the victim boy whatsoever arises, because he was confined at the house of the applicant-accused for a much longer period. This victim boy (P.W. 3) has also identified the applicant-accused. Over and above, the role played by the applicant-accused has also been narrated by the victim boy, in detail. 5. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4, who is the informant and father of the victim boy, it appears that there is enough corroboration to the deposition given by the P.W. 3. 6. Likewise, looking to the depositions of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who are the uncles of P.W. 3, it appears, that there is prima facie against the present applicant-accused and sizeable amount has also been paid to the other co-accused. 8. Thus, looking to the depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5, it appears that there is prima facie case against the applicant-accused. Looking to the gravity of the offence and the quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present applicant-accused is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, and also looking to the fact that on previous occasions also, unsuccessful attempts were made for getting an order of suspension of sentence and also looking to the fact that earlier also the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected, this time also, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court, to the present applicant.;