RAJ KUMAR KAPARDAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter is called out, counsel for the applicant [who is original accused No. 1] is absent. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State -A.P.P., who has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye -witnesses, who have seen the incident and have narrated the role played by the appellant -accused, in detail and weapon used in causing injury upon the body of the deceased.

(2.) IT is also submitted by the A.P.P. that the depositions of the eye -witnesses are getting individual corroboration by the medical evidence and nature of the weapon also.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the State and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against the applicant [original appellant No. 11. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record. Suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon the eyewitnesses. Looking to their depositions, they have clearly supported the case of the prosecution, particularly, the weapon used by him which is sharp -cutting instrument. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 8 Dr. Prabhu Narayan Jha, the injury has been sustained by the deceased at the vital part of the body which is capable of being caused by the sharp -cutting instrument.