D.N.PATEL.J. - (1.) THE present Interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 389 Clause 1 and Clause 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence which has been awarded by the trial court to the appellant -accused for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and also for the offence punishable under Section 120B of. the Indian Penal Code, but, no separate Sentence has been awarded for the said offence of kidnapping and for ransom.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the applicant, who is original accused No.2, in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2005, at length, and has argued out the case in much detail. Perused the record and proceedings of the trial court. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is, prima facie, case against the appellant accused. As the criminal appeal. is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record. Suffice it to say that one businessman namely, Kamal Kedia, was abducted and sizeable amount of ransom money was demanded by hatching conspiracy by the accused persons which were tried in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2005 as well as there are two more accused who are still absconding as on today.
(3.) LOOKING to the evidences on record that one witness i.e. P.W. 12, who has gone with money as ransom money has identified this present appellant -accused. Looking to the evidences on record, there is enough material against the present applicant -accused. Even, the ransom It Jharkhand 2011 (1) JLJR amount has been recovered which is totally at Rs. 4,20,000/ - (out of this, sizeable amount was recovered from present accused viz. Ganesh Singh), when the appellant -accused was in the house of another co -accused namely Tulsi Yadav, the house was raided and there was firing by accused side, upon the police also. A separate case has been registered for recovery of ransom money and firing upon the police. Money has also been identified by P.W. 12. Likewise, looking to the deposition of P.W. 1, who is informant and other prosecution -witnesses, there is a, prima facie, caSe against the appellantaccused. Looking to the gravity of offence, the quantum of punishment and the manner in which the whole incident has taken place and looking to the role played by the appellant -accused and also looking to the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court, to the appellant -accused.;