KHALIL MIAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present interlocutory application has been preferred by applicant no. 2 namely Mansoor Mian, who is original accused no. 2, under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -IX, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2007 whereby, the present applicant has been punished for the offence mainly under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is prima facie a case against the present applicant. Earlier twice the interlocutory applications preferred by the present applicant for suspension of sentence has not been allowed by this Hon'ble Court and this is the third attempt for getting the suspension of sentence. Lastly on 23rd August, 2010, the interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1277 of 2010 preferred by the present applicant for suspension of sentence was dismissed by a detailed speaking order. Paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the said order reads as under: -

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both sides and looking to the evidence on record, it appears that there is a prima facie case against the applicants -accused. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record. Suffice it to say that there are number of eye witnesses in the present case. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are the eye witnesses. Moreover, there is enough corroboration of the medical evidence given by P.W. 10 Dr. A.K. Choudhary, who has stated that there are several multiple injuries on the deceased Abbas Mian. There are also injuries on the right scapular region as well as chest and abdomen as also on the left parietal bone and fracture of left parietal bone measuring 7 Cm. X 5 Cm. and a portion of brain has come out of the scalp. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the applicants accused that the eye witnesses are interest or partisan witnesses. As this is a stage of 389 Cr.P.C., we are not much going into the details. Suffice it to say that these eye witnesses are natural eye witnesses and they have given clear depositions involving the applicants -accused in the present case. The weapon alleged in the hand of the appellants -accused is corroborative to the medical evidence -injuries sustained by the deceased and, therefore, at this stage, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the trial court. Even on previous occasion, prayer for suspension of sentence of these applicants -accused was rejected by this Court by a detailed speaking order dated 5th August, 2009.