KALACHAND MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred under Section 389 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded to the appellant, namely, Bhagtu Mahto, who is original accused no. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 1994, mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been punished for live imprisonment.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is a prima facie case against this 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 more than one eyewitness, who are P.Ws. 7 and 8. One of the eyewitnesses is also an injured eye witness. Looking to their depositions, there is prima facie case against this appellantaccused. The deposition is also getting corroboration by the medical evidence, P.W. 13 (Doctor), who has carried out postmortem on the body of the deceased. In view of these evidences and also looking to the depositions of the other prosecution witnesses, the depositions of eyewitness is getting enough corroboration.

(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: