D.N.Patel, J. - (1.) Counsel for the State-A.P.P. submitted that the present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded to appellant no.1, Janardan Sao, who is original accused no. 1, in Sessions Trial No. 595 of 1993.
(2.) WHEN the matter was called out, counsel for the appellant (original accused no.1) is absent. Previously also counsel for the appellant was either absent or had taken adjournment since last four times. We have heard counsel for the State, who has mainly submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon eye witnesses. The weapon alleged to be holding in the hand of this appellant is Lathi and the deposition of P.W.2 is getting enough corroboration by other evidences on record including the deposition given by P.W.8, who is Dr. Ramsewak Sahu, who has carried out postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased, Ramlakhan Sao. P.W.2 is the eye witness, who is also the informant of this case.
(3.) HAVING heard learned A.P.P. and looking to the evidence on record, it appears that there is a prima facie case against this appellant-accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the deposition of eye witnesses including the medical evidence available on record, it appears that the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of the several eye witnesses including deposition given by P.W.2 and P.W.6. Their deposition is getting enough corroboration by the medical evidence given by P.W.8, Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu. Looking to their deposition, it appears that they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant-accused in causing injuries upon the body of the deceased. Moreover, previously also on 09.03.2004 and on 23.02.2006 the prayer for suspension of sentence awarded to him by the trial Court was rejected by the Division Bench of this court and there is no change in the circumstance after earlier rejection of the prayer for suspension of sentence. In view of these facts and looking to the evidence on record, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present appellant is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.VII, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No. 595 of 1993. There is no substance in I.A. No. 1161 of 2012. Hence, the prayer for suspension of sentence, is rejected.;