D.N. Patel, J - (1.) PRESENT appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 07th of November 2012. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 337 of 2007 was called for from the trial court, so as to appreciate the argument for suspension of sentence. We have heard counsel for both the sides for suspension of sentence awarded to these appellants by the Sessions Judge, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 337 of 2007.
(2.) WE have perused the records and proceedings. Counsel for the appellants argued at length with finest nicety of arguments based upon depositions of prosecution witnesses. Looking to the evidences on record of the witnesses, there is prima -facie case against both the appellants/accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but suffice it to say that : - (i) Incident has taken place on 22nd of May 2007 at 7 A.M. F.I.R. was lodged on 22nd May 2007 at 10 A.M. Deceased Indu Devi was burnt in the house of appellants/accused as per the case of prosecution. (ii) It is the case of prosecution that when she was brought to referral hospital at Nagar Untari, she was conscious and she sustained burn injury and gave her fardbeyan before the I.O. (P.W. -13) in which she clearly narrated the role played by these two appellants/accused. Thereafter it was also signed by P.W. -13, who is I.O., as well as it was signed by Sunil Kumar, who is husband of deceased and P.W. -7, and marked as Ext. -2. (iii) It also appears from the evidences on record that there is lengthy cross examination of the prosecution witness, especially of I.O., who has stated at Paragraph No. 10 of the cross examination that when he met with Indu Devi at the hospital, she was conscious and she gave her statement which was reduced in writing and she has expired later on, on the same day which is not treated as dying declaration. There is no cross examination about her unconsciousness by the accused. (iv) Similarly, Doctor has also examined as P.W. -12, who has not been asked any question in the cross examination whether Indu Devi was able to speak or not. Thus, these facts constitute prima -facie case against the appellants/accused. Counsel for the appellants has argued that the house was bolted from inside, but there is no such cross examination of the I.O. who has visited the place of scene of offence.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants has argued out the case of alibi, but he has not led any evidence in support of his argument. Several other points have also been mentioned. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not going into the details of the evidences, but looking to the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, there is prima -facie case against the appellants/accused and looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which appellants/accused are involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellants by learned trial court. Hence prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellants/accused is hereby rejected.;