SONADHAN SOREN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A No. 802/2016 Admittedly this is second attempt made by the appellant - applicant, Sonadhan Soren, for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal, earlier one having been rejected vide order dated 10 th February, 2010.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant -applicant submits that not only the appellant -applicant is languishing in jail for the last about eight years, he belongs to the poorest strata of the society and was not in a position to even defend his case before learned trial court and for this reason, services of a lawyer from the District Legal Services Authority was provided to him, who did not cross -examine even one of the prosecution witnesses including the so -called eye -witness who happens to be the husband of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that in this eventuality, learned trial court should have made some arrangement for engaging the services of another lawyer from the District Legal Services Authority or in terms of section 304 Cr.P.C, 1973. According to learned counsel, in these flashback of the facts, the appellant -applicant has not been afforded an opportunity to defend his case properly.