NARAYAN DAS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the counsel for both sides, this appeal is admitted.

(2.) RECORDS and proceedings of Sessions Case No.01 of 2010 is hereby called for from the trial Court. Registry is directed to prepare and keep on record the neatly typed paper book as required under Rules 190 and 191 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.

(3.) LEARNED A.P . appearing for the State has submitted that the whole .P incidence have been seen by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4 who have also given their evidence, whereas PW.4 had reached at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident had taken place and deposition of three witnesses gets corroboration by the evidences given by PW.5 and PW.6 who are Investigating Officer and the Doctor respectively. The learned counsel further submitted that the version of the eyewitnesses have been adequately corroborated by the other evidences on record and, therefore, prayer for suspension of sentence may not be allowed by this Court. 3) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie evidences against the appellant accused. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record but suffice it will be for us to say that the incidence which has taken place on 07.07.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. was witnessed by PW.1 and PW.2. We have perused the depositions of these eyewitnesses and the statements which have been tendered by the counsel for the appellant. Looking to these depositions, they have narrated the role played by the appellant in committing the murder of Mahesh Kant Jha. The depositions of these two witnesses is also getting corroboration by deposition given by PW.5 and P.W.6 who are the Investigating Officer and the Doctor respectively. PW.4 had arrived at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident had taken place and he has narrated in his deposition clearly the place of incidence and the time of incidence and also he has narrated that the accused persons were fleeing away from the scene of incidence. Looking to the medical evidence, there are several injuries upon the body of the deceased. The weapon alleged to be in the hand of the appellant is also corroborated by the witnesses of causing injuries upon the body of the deceased. These evidences constitute a prima facie case against the appellantaccused and also looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and also the manner in which the appellant is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant, named above, by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No.01 of 2010 whereby the appellant is mainly punished for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide order of conviction dated 11 th January, 2012.