- (1.) This criminal appeal has already been Admitted vide order dated 11th February, 2013. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1993 was called from the trial court so as to appreciate the arguments for suspension of sentence, awarded by the trial court to the present appellant. Counsel appearing for the appellant is seeking time for adjournment which is refused by this Court because the appellant has sought for time on the following dates:-- (i) 4.9.2012 (ii) 18.9.2012 (iii) 24.9.2012 (iv) 8.1.0.2012 (v) 7.11.2012 (vi) 7.1.2013 (vii) 15.1.2013 (viii) 23.1.2013 (ix) 7.3.2013 (x) 13.3.2013 (xi) 15.4.2013 (xii) 29.4.2013 Today also, counsel for the appellant is seeking time and therefore, the prayer for adjournment is refused.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the whole incident has taken place on 20th July, 1991 at about 8.30 p.m. and immediate is the F.I.R. i.e. on the next day i.e. on 21st July, 1991. This appellant, who is original accused No. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1993, was named in the F.I.R. The case of the prosecution is based upon several eye witnesses, who are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that these eye witnesses have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant in bomb explosion causing murder of the deceased namely, Amiruddin Mian. It is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the medical evidence given by P.W. 7, who is Dr. Vinod Kumar, is in corroboration to the depositions of the eye witnesses. It is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that this appellant-accused was absent and was not available at the time of the trial and therefore, the trial was separated bearing Sessions Trial No. 20(A) of 1993 and subsequently, he surrendered to the court and again his trial was amalgamated with other co-accused trial. In these sets of circumstances, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the sentence, awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1993 to this appellant for life imprisonment, may not be suspended by this Court.
(3.) We have perused the record and proceedings of the trial court. Looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against this appellant. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye witnesses, who are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. They have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant in causing murder of the deceased by bomb explosion. The deposition of these eye witnesses is getting enough corroboration by the medical evidence given by P.W. 7-Dr. Vinod Kumar. Moreover, as noted in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment, this appellant (original accused No. 1 of the sessions trial) was absent and was not available to the trial court and hence, the case was separated and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 20(A) of 1993 and latter on, he surrendered to the court and therefore, again his trial was amalgamated with the trial of other co-accused. This appellant has also been identified by the witnesses. In view of these facts and looking to the evidences on record, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present appellant is involved in the offence of murder of the deceased, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence, awarded to this appellant by the trial court. Hence, the prayer for suspension of sentence is hereby, dismissed.;