Full Judgment
1. Presentinterlocutoryapplicationhasbeenpreferredbyappellantno.3, namely,RajendraRajwar(originalaccusedno.2intheSessionsTrial)under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awardedtohimbythetrialcourt.Thisappellanthasbeensentencedforlife imprisonment mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IndianPenalCodeandhehasalsobeenpunishedunderotherSectionsofthe IndianPenalCode.
2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against appellant no.
3. Previouslyalso,I.A.No.776of2011waspreferredforsuspensionofsentence andthesamewasrejectedvideorderdated1stJuly,2011bydetailedspeaking order.Paragraph4whereofreadsasunder:
4. Havingheardboththesidesandlookingtotheevidenceonrecord thatthereissufficientevidenceagainstthepresentapplicantNaresh Rajwar(originalaccusedNo.3)ofSessionsTrialNo.43of2004.Asthe CriminalAppealispending,wearenotmuchanalyzingtheevidence onrecordindetail,thoughtheCounselfortheapplicanthasargued out the case in much detail. Suffice it to say that looking to the evidenceonrecord,itappearsthatP .W.1istheinjuredeyewitness, whoisalsotheinformant,hasgiven clearevidence beforetheTrial Court which involves the present applicant that he has used sharp cutting instrument to cause death of the deceased. Moreover, the evidence given by the P.W.1 is getting enough corroboration by the depositionsoftheotherwitnesseslikeP .W.2,P .W.3andP .W.10.These threearealsotheeyewitnesses.Moreover,thedepositionsofallthese four eye witnesses is also getting enough corroboration by medical evidencegivenbyP .W.12.Thereare8injuriesuponthedeceased.The Counselfortheapplicanthasinsistedfordetailedspeakingorderbut asthisCriminalAppealispending,wearenotgoinginmuchdetailbut 2 on the point of light, at the time of incident, the Counsel for the applicanthasconcentratedmuchfortheidentificationoftheaccused. Suffice it to say on this point that the accused are neighbours and knowntothevictimi.e.P .W.1andonthebasisofvoicealso,therecan beanidentification.Atthisstage,wearenotgoingintothedepositions givenbyotherprosecutionwitnessesalso,but,theaforesaidevidences aresufficienttoconstitute aprimafacie case againstthe applicant. Moreover, mathematical accuracy hand statistical nicety cannot be expected from the eyewitness to give accounting of the injuries sustainedbythedeceasedatthebehestoftheaccused.Inviewofthe evidenceonrecord,thereisaprimafacecaseagainsttheapplicant, namely, Naresh Rajwar and looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the applicant is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant, namely, NareshRajwar.ThereisnosubstanceinthisInterlocutoryApplication, hence,thesameisherebydismissed.
3. LookingtotheevidencesoftheprosecutionwitnessesespeciallyP.W.1, P.W.2,P.W.3andP.W.10tobereadwithmedicalevidencegivenbyP.W.12and P.W.13, there is prima facie case against appellant no.
3. In view of these evidencesonrecord,wearenotinclinedtosuspendthesentenceawardedto appellant no. 3 by the trial court and, hence, his prayer for suspension of sentenceis,hereby,rejected.
4. Nonetheless,lookingtotheperiodofcustodyassubmittedbylearned counsel for the appellants that appellant no. 3 is in judicial custody from approximately10years,weherebydirecttheRegistryofthisCourttogetthe paper books prepared with neatly typed copies of depositions of the prosecutionwitnessesandotherdocuments asrequiredunderRules190and 191oftheJharkhandHighCourtRules,2001 andthemattershallbelisted immediatelyontheboardforfinalhearinginitsseriatimnumberasperperiod ofcustody.
5. I.A.No.1925of2013is,accordingly,dismissed. (D.N.Patel,J.) (ShreeChandrashekhar,J.) Ajay/