PRAYAG SAO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole appellant, namely Prayag Sao alias Prayag Shah, who is original accused No. 2, for his suspension of sentence, awarded by the trial Court. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima facie, a case against the present appellant. Previously also on two different occasions, prayers for suspension of sentence of the appellant were rejected by this Court, firstly on 26th April, 2011 in I.A. No. 580 of 2011 and secondly on 17th June, 2011 in I.A. No. 1027 of 2011.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has argued out the case, at length, especially paragraph 28 of the deposition of P.W. 8, who is eye -witness of the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W. 8 is a child and tutored witness and she has stated, whatever is conveyed by die police to her. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that on earlier occasion, same was the argument and it was observed by this Court while rejecting this argument vide order dated 26th April, 2011, which reads as under:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has also argued out about the advance age more than one F.I.R. etc. of me present appellant. We are not accepting this argument mainly for the following reasons: