D.N. Patel - (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 II, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 2003 whereby, the present applicant, who is original accused, has been convicted mainly for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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 applicant. The incidence has taken place on 7th March, 2003 and immediately F.I.R. has been filed on 8th March, 2003 and the present applicant is named in the F.I.R.. Moreover, the case of the prosecution is based upon eye witness, who is P.W.7. The version of the eye witness have enough corroborations by the other prosecution witnesses especially by P.W.1, who is a doctor. The weapon alleged in the hand of the applicant is a sharp cutting instrument and looking to the medical evidence, there are as many as four injuries caused upon the body of the deceased. Counsel for the applicant has also pointed out that the applicant was not present at the time of incidence and at the place of incidence. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing these arguments and the evidences on records, but, suffice it to say that this is the third attempt made by the present applicant for getting suspension of sentence. Previously, twice the prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant has been rejected and there is no change in circumstances whatsoever after rejection of prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant. In view of these facts, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence, awarded to the present applicant, by the trial court. There is no substance in this interlocutory application. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;