D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) I .A. No. 1212 of 2010 Learned counsel for the applicant in I.A. No. 1212 of 2010 is present and has submitted that the present interlocutory application has been preferred by appellant no. 3, who is original accused no. 5, under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded to him by the trial court. The applicant has been punished mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment with fine.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima facie, case against appellant no. 3, namely, Sukra Oraon. The case of the prosecution is based upon several eye witnesses, who are P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, out of which, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are hostile. Nonetheless, they have proved certain aspects of the matter. Looking to the deposition of these eye witnesses especially P.W.2 and P.W.5, they have clearly narrated the role played by the present applicant (original accused no. 5). The depositions of these witnesses are constituting prima facie case and their depositions are also getting enough corroboration by the deposition given by P.W.6 Dr. Niranjan Minz. There are as many as five incised wounds. The weapons alleged in the hand of the present applicant is a sharp cutting instrument. The evidences of these witnesses is constituting a prima facie case and, therefore, looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which appellant no. 3, namely, Sukra Oraon, is involved in the offence with co -accused, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Previously also, twice his prayer for suspension of sentence was not granted by this Court and this is a third attempt. There is no change in the circumstance after earlier rejection of the prayer for suspension of sentence, except efflux of time. In view of the aforesaid evidences, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to appellant no. 3, by the trial court and, hence, his prayer for suspension of sentence is rejected. There is no substance in this interlocutory application and, hence, I.A. No. 1212 of 2010 is, hereby, dismissed. I.A. No. 2030 of 2010 With I.A. No. 1130 of 2012 1. When the matter is called out, nobody appears on behalf of the appellant no. 2, namely, Balwa Oraon (original accused no. 4). 2. We have heard learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, who has submitted that both interlocutory applications have been preferred by appellant no. 2 under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded to him by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the State and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima facie, case against appellant no. 2. The 3 case of the prosecution is based upon more than one eye witness. Looking to the deposition of P.W.2 and P.W.5, it appears that they have clearly narrated the role played by this applicant in causing murder of the deceased. Moreover, the deposition of these eye witnesses is also getting enough corroboration by the deposition given by P.W.6 Dr. Niranjan Minz. 4. In view of these evidences on record, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to appellant no. 2 by the trial court and, hence, his prayer for suspension of sentence is rejected. There is no substance in these interlocutory applications and, hence, both the interlocutory applications being I.A. No. 2030 of 2010 and I.A. No. 1130 of 2012 are dismissed.
(3.) Looking to the period of custody of the present appellants, we hereby direct the Registry of this Court to get the paper books prepared with neatly typed copies of depositions of the witnesses and other documents, as required under Rules 190 and 191 of the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001, at the earliest and immediately thereafter, this criminal appeal will be enlisted on the board "For Hearing" in its seriatim number, as per the period of custody.;