ABID KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Md. Abid Khan in Cri. Appeal(DB)No. 14 of 2015 has made prayer for suspension of sentence through I.A. No. 5133 of 2017 while Appellant No.3, Md. Fahim alias Md. Fahim Alam in Cri. Appeal(DB)No. 884 of 2014 has also made similar prayer through I.A. No. 1246 of 2018.

(2.) Let it be noted at the outset that prayer for suspension of sentence on behalf of all 4 Appellants in these two appeals was considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) was also a member, after receipt of the Lower Court Records and on merits. By order dated 18.03.2016 their prayer was rejected.

(3.) These two Appellants have now renewed the prayer. Appellant Md. Fahim alias Md. Fahim Alam is in custody since 212.2011, while appellant Md. Abid Khan is in custody since 09.04.2012. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the appellants submit that RW.4 cannot not be taken to be an eye-witness in view of her specific statement made at para 8 during her cross-examination. RWs. 2 and 3, though have turned hostile but in their examination-in-chief, have clearly stated that the assailants were wearing monkey caps and they could not identify them. P.W.7 has also admitted case of enmity with the accused persons. As per his version, which is not only an improvement on the initial story made out in the F.I.R, he could not have seen the assailants as he hid himself inside his house. In that case, there are no reliable witnesses on record to the incidence. The Investigating Officer also confirms the lack of any evidence of fire amis shot on any place, wall etc. on the house of the Informant, though it has been alleged that they had opened fire indiscriminately. The appellant Md. Abid has been acquitted of the charges under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1-B), 26(1) of the Arms Act in Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2013 by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. All these materials taken together make the case of the prosecution highly doubtful. These material evidences have not been duly appreciated by the learned Court while rejecting the prayer earlier for suspension of sentence. Therefore, since the two appellants have also remained in custody for about more than 6 years in their respective cases, they may be enlarged on bail as there is no chance of appeal being heard expeditiously.