Hemanand Baraik vs State of Jharkhand

Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.—The present interlocutory application has been preferred u/s 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded to the appellant by the Principal District Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2007. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is a prima facie case against the appellant-accused. The case of the prosecution is based upon several eye-witnesses, who are P.W.1, P.W.6 and P.W.8 and in their depositions, they have narrated clearly the role played by the present appellant-accused in committing the murder of the deceased. P.W.8 is an informant. The depositions of these eyewitnesses are getting enough corroboration by the medical evidence given by the doctor (P.W. 10). Moreover, previously also, the prayer for suspension of sentence awarded to the present appellant was rejected by this Court by a speaking order dated 27th September, 2012. This is the second attempt and there is no change in circumstance whatsoever except passage of time after rejection of earlier prayer for suspension of sentence.

In view of these facts and looking to the evidences on record, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present appellant-accused is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court. Hence, this I.A. is hereby dismissed.