D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original accused no. 2 of S.T. No. 619 of 2003) as he has been mainly punished under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. for 10 years R.I. and he has also been punished under various other sections of I.P.C. and all the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently by the learned trial court. This Court has admitted this criminal appeal by order dated 14th May, 2013 and the records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 619 of 2003 was called for from the trial court so as to appreciate the arguments for suspension of sentence.
(2.) THIS Court has received the records and proceedings of the Sessions Trial No. 619 of 2003. We have perused the same and heard the counsel for both the sides at length for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. Looking to the evidences on record, there is a prima facie case against this appellant. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analysing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the case of prosecution is based upon several injured eyewitnesses, who are P.Ws 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. All these are injured eyewitnesses, who have been examined by Dr. Shambhu Prasad Singh P. W 9 and Dr. Chandra Bhushan Sahay P. W 11. Looking to the evidences of these witnesses as well as the evidence of P.W 1, they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant in causing injuries upon the body of the deceased. Their evidence is constituting a prima facie case against this appellant. The deposition of the eyewitness P.W 1 and injured eyewitnesses is getting enough corroboration by the medical evidence given by P.W 2Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, who carried out the postmortem of the body of the deceased. P.Ws 9 and 11 have proved the injuries of the injured eyewitnesses. In the light of these evidences on record, there is a prima facie case against this appellant. Looking to the prima facie case, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which this appellant is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him by the trial court in S.T. No. 619 of 2003.
(3.) THEREFORE , there is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence and the same is hereby rejected.;