BABLU KHAN @ BABLU SAHID Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been preferred by the appellant Bablu Khan, who is original accused No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996/Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2003. This application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for suspension of sentence awarded to this appellant by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1996/Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2003 and vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12th February, 2007 this appellant has been mainly punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and also he has been punished under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act for 5 years and under Section 3 thereof he has been punished for 10 years. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) HAVING heard counsel for both the sides and perused the record and proceeding of S.T. No. 120 of 1996/Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2003.

(3.) LOOKING to the evidences on record, there is a primafacie case against this applicant, who is Bablu Khan son of Abdul Hussain. As this criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the evidence of PW 7 and PW 10 there is a prima facie case against this appellant. Their deposition is getting enough corroboration by the deposition given by PW 11, who is Dr. Vishambhar Mandal, who has carried out the post -mortem on the dead body of the deceased Dilip Sao. There are several injuries sustained by the deceased. Moreover also looking to the evidence given by the Investigating Officer there is enough corroboration to the deposition of PW 7 and PW 10. There are other evidences also, which supports the case of the prosecution. Moreover previously the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected by this Court on two occasions firstly vide order dated 22.04.2008 and secondly it was rejected on 29.06.2010 in I.A. No. 1047 of 2010.