BASUDEO MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present applications [I.A. (Cr.) Nos. 692 and 1624 of 2010] have been preferred by the applicant No. 1 (original accused No. 1) under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IX, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 2006 by order of conviction dated 19.07.2008, whereby, the present applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as other sections of the Indian Penal Code.. Having heard Learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie, case against the present applicant. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record. Suffice it to say that there are several prosecution-witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution, more particularly, looking to the depositions given by P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 to be read with deposition given by P.W. 7, there is, prima facie, case against the present applicant.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant has argued out, the case in much detail and find nicety of the law and facts have been pointed out for contradictions and omissions, we are not dealing with all these arguments, keeping in mind the pendency of the Criminal appeal. One of the major arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant that this is a case based upon substituted F.I.R., This contention is also not accepted by this Court, looking to the deposition given by P.W. 7 to be read with depositions given by other prosecution-witnesses. Moreover, even the hostile witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, especially P.W. 3 for several facts which are necessary to be proved by the prosecution.

(3.) Suffice it to say that at this stage, all these evidences constitute, prima facie, case against the accused persons. Previously also the applicant preferred prayer for suspension of sentence bearing I.A. No. 679 of 2009 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2009. At the time of admission of Criminal Appeal while passing an order dated 21.01.2009, the prayer for suspension of sentence was also rejected. This is a 3rd attempt, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence to applicant No. 1 (original accused No. 1), looking to the aforesaid evidences on record, looking to the quantum of punishment and manner in which the present applicant is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution. There is no substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant No. 1 (original accused No. 1) for suspending the sentence in the present interlocutory application and hence, the I.A. (Cr.) Nos. 692 and 1624 of 2010, stand rejected.