KUNTIS MINZ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dtd. 18/8/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum-Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. Case No. 278 of 2021 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec. 302 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.50,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for two years.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the conviction is based even though most of the witnesses have turned hostile. It has been contended that the witnesses have become hostile itself clarifies that prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge said to be committed by the present appellant. It has been contended that even the testimony of P.W. 7 cannot be trustworthy, since, so many contradictions are there. It has further been contended that the doctor although has substantiate the prosecution version, but in the trial, DNA profile is also corroborating the culpability said to be committed by the present appellant but in absence of any finger prints in the axe (tangi) the commission of crime said to be committed by the appellant cannot be said to be conclusively proved and therefore, it is a fit case where the sentence may be suspended.

(3.) While on the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.