D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THIS interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant Ruplal Murmu, who is original accused No. 2 in the Sessions Trial No.187 of 2002. The conviction awarded by the 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka vide order dated 18th September, 2004 is mainly for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2002.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie evidences against the applicant. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record but suffice it to us that there are more than one eyewitnesses of the incident and looking to the depositions of these witnesses, there is prima facie case against the present applicant in the offence of murder of the deceased. Moreover, these evidences also get corroboration by the medical evidence given by PW.2 Dr. Debashish Rakshit and looking to deposition given by PW.10 Dr. Nirmal Kumar Singh. Moreover, previously also prayer for suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant was rejected by different Division Benches vide orders dated 11.05.2005, and 16.11.2009. This is the 3rd attempt for suspension of sentence awarded to the applicant. There is no change in the circumstances after the last dismissal of the interlocutory application being I.A. (Cr) No.2175 of 2009 filed on behalf of the applicant for suspension of the sentence awarded to him which was rejected vide order dated 16.11.2009. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the order dated 16.11.2009 read as under: "3. Learned Counsel for the present appellantaccused has argued out the case in much detail and fine nicety of the prosecution witnesses and depositions have been pointed out. Suffice it to say that as the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analysing the evidences on record, but, looking to the deposition given by PW1, who is eye witness of the incident, has stated clearly the role played by the appellantaccused, the weapon used by the appellant accused, assault upon Thakur Murmu deceased. Postmortem of Thakur Murmu is done by PW2Dr. Debashish Rakshit and looking to the deposition of PW1, there is material against this appellantaccused. Weapon with which injuries have been caused to deceased as per PW1 is corroborated by the medical evidence, given by PW2. 4) Further, looking to the deposition given by PW7 also, vital role has been played by the appellantaccused. This witness is also ocular evidence. Counsel for the appellant accused has submitted that partly this PW7 has given false evidence and therefore, he is not a reliable witness. This contention is not accepted by this Court, at this stage. Even otherwise also, falssus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the maxim is not applicable in criminal jurisdiction and therefore, rightly it has been observed by the trial Court in internal page7 of the impugned judgment that though partly he is giving incorrect evidence, but, he is ocular evidence, so far as the present appellant is concerned, but, he is ocular evidence, so far as the present appellant is concerned, so far as the weapon used by the appellantaccused is concerned as well as, so far as assault upon Thakur Murmu (deceased) is concerned. Thus, deposition of PW1 is corroborating by PW7, prima facie, at this stage. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not going much into the details. 5) Likewise, there is PW9, who is an eye witness and the wife of the deceased Thakur Murmu. She has also narrated clearly the role played by this appellantaccused and her deposition is also corroborating to the depositions of PW1 and PW7 and medical evidence (PW2) is also, prima facie, corroborating." In view of the aforesaid evidences on record and looking to the earlier dismissal orders and also looking to the gravity of the offence and quantum of punishment, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant, named above. I.A. No. 829 of 2012 is, therefore, dismissed.;