Raj Kumar Kapardar and Another vs State of Jharkhand

Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.—When the matter is called out, counsel for the applicant [who is original accused No. 1] is absent. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State-A.P.P., who has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye-witnesses, who have seen the incident and have narrated the role played by the appellant-accused, in detail and weapon used in causing injury upon the body of the deceased.

It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that the depositions of the eye-witnesses are getting individual corroboration by the medical evidence and nature of the weapon also.

Moreover, previously on several occasions prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected by this Court and there is no change in the circumstances for filing the present interlocutory application and hence, this I.A. may not be entertained by this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the State and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against the applicant [original appellant No. 11. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record. Suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon the eyewitnesses. Looking to their depositions, they have clearly supported the case of the prosecution, particularly, the weapon used by him which is sharp-cutting instrument. Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 8 Dr. Prabhu Narayan Jha, the injury has been sustained by the deceased at the vital part of the body which is capable of being caused by the sharp-cutting instrument.

In view of these evidences on record, there is, prima facie, case against the original appellant No. 1 in this Criminal Appeal. Moreover, previously, vide order dated 25-09-2006. the prayer for suspension of the sentence of the original appellant. No. 1 was rejected by a detailed speaking order.

Similarly vide order dated 8-03-2011, the prayer for suspension of sentence by the very same applicant was also rejected by this Court in I.A. No. 309 of 2011, in the present Criminal Appeal.

This is a 3rd attempt and there is no change in the circumstances at all. In view of these evidences on record, the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the fact on earlier occasions, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant were rejected and there is no change in the circumstance. Thereafter, we see no reason to; entertain this Interlocutory application and hence, this I.A. (Cr.) No. 726 of 2012, is hereby, dismissed.