MUNSHI TUDU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal was filed through JHALSA, in which Mr.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, was engaged to defend the cause of the appellant. Since the appellant has engaged Mr.Gautam Kumar, Advocate, to prosecute the instant appeal, it appeas that he does not require the services of JHALSA or at the time of seeking the assistance of a lawyer through JHALSA, he misled JHALSA. Be that as it may, under the present set of circumstances, it is no longer the case which is being contested by JHALSA.

(2.) Mr.Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while making the prayer for suspension of sentence, vehemently argued that there appears to be no evidence, much less clinching evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence but for one fact that the accused and the deceased were seen together at a particular place and had entered into an altercation on account of some money affair and thereafter on the next date, deadbody of the deceased was found lying.

(3.) Learned counsel, thus, submits that all these planks of evidence collected by the prosecution, individually or collectively, cannot be said to be pointer towards the guilt of the appellant.