(1.) The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Sec. 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded to the present appellant (original accused no. 4 in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2007), passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.V, Godda. This appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 364A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/and in case of default, he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. This appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
(2.) We have perused the record and proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2007. Looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against this appellant. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the depositions given by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, there is prima facie case against this appellant. Ransom was also paid to one of the co-accused namely, Ajay Yadav. As this criminal appeal is pending, we are not going much into the evidence of the prosecution, but, suffice it to say that this Ajay Yadav, who was paid money, has also consulted Ramji Yadav at the railway platform of Sahibganj. Every act of coconspirator is a furtherance of the conspiracy.
(3.) Moreover, earlier on 3rd Nov., 2010, the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, on 27th Feb., 2013 an I.A. was preferred in this criminal appeal being I.A. No. 168 of 2013, which has been rejected as not pressed. Thus, this is third attempt for getting order under Sec. 389 of the Code of Criminal procedure and there is no change in circumstance whatsoever after the said rejection except efflux of time. Thus, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to this appellant by the trial court.