SAWANA LAKRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2013-7-47
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on July 25,2013

Sawana Lakra Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.N.PATEL.J. - (1.) THE present interlocutory application has been preferred by the original appellant no. 1 who is original accused no.1 in Sessions Trial No. 609 of 2011 with the following prayers; "7. ....It is therefore prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to admit the I.A. and further be pleased to grant permission to the appellant/petitioner to go to the Jharkhand State Legislative Assembly House at Ranchi from 25.07.2013 to 27.07.2013 for participating in the monsoon session at Jharkhand Legislative Assembly and further be pleased to give necessary order/direction to the Superintendent of Birsa Munda Central Jail Hotwar, Ranchi; and/or passed such other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper; and for which kind act, the appellant/petitioner shall ever pray. 
(2.) THE appellant no. 1 has been convicted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 609 of 2011 for rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -and in case of default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. This appellant has also been convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code thereof and also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ -and in case of default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. This appellant has also been awarded 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under 201 of the Indian Penal Code. This criminal appeal was admitted vide order dated 4th July, 2013 and the record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 609 of 2011 was called for from the Trial Court so as to appreciate the argument for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant (original appellant no.1) has submitted that upon instruction from his client he is not pressing the prayer for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he will file separate interlocutory application for the said prayer but he is pressing this interlocutory application for the prayer as stated hereinabove.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.