MAHADEO SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1995/ 32 of 2003, to the present appellant, who is original accused no. 1.

(2.) 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 appellantaccused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye witnesses, who are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P 4. The depositions of these eye witnesses are getting enough corroboration by the deposition, given by P.W. 5, Dr. N.K. Lal, who has carried out postmortem of the deceased. There is head injury caused by the appellant accused. Moreover, P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are injured eye witnesses. Moreover, prayer for suspension of sentence was earlier rejected by this Court and there is no change in the circumstance, except lapse of time.

(3.) IT has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khilari v. State of U.P and another reported in AIR 2008 S.C. 1882 especially in . paragraph 10, which reads as under: