Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 197 (JHR)

Sakra Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2013-02-06

D.N.PATEL, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
Order D.N. Patel, J. Present appeal, has already been admitted vide order dated 17th January, 2013. 2. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2006 was called for from the Trial Court so as to appreciate .the argument for suspension of sentence. 3. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2006 has been received by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2012 (which has been preferred by accused-Sunil Oraon-original accused no. 1 in the Sessions Trial). 4. We have perused the record and proceedings of Sessions Trial and heard the counsel for both the sides at length. 5. Having heard the counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is prima facie, case against this appellant-accused who is original accused no. 1 in the Sessions Trial. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record but suffice it say that, the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye witnesses who are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. Looking to their depositions, we find there is, prima facie case against this appellant-accused. They have also identified the present appellant-accused in the Court. Moreover, their depositions are also getting further corroboration by the deposition given by P.W. 14 who is Investigating Officer and depositions of P.W. 15 who is Dr. N.K. Sinha. These evidences together are constituting a prima facie case against this appellant-accused. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is doubtful identity of this appellant-accused and hence, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court may be suspended. This contention is not accepted by this court mainly for the reason that as stated hereinabove more than one eye witness has identified this appellant-accused in the Court and therefore, at this stage of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are not analyzing much the evidences given by P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 to be read with deposition of P.W. 14 alongwith their cross-examinations otherwise there will be decision upon the whole Criminal appeal itself. 7. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not been named in the First Information Report and therefore, the sentence must be suspended. This contention is also not accepted by this Court. 7. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not been named in the First Information Report and therefore, the sentence must be suspended. This contention is also not accepted by this Court. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dana Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in (2002)7 SCC 295 [2002(3) JLJR (SC)208]. This judgment has been relied upon by the counsel for the appellant but as stated hereinabove this is the stage of suspension of sentence and not the stage of final hearing. Counsel has unnecessarily insisted upon for deal with each and every argument which he has canvassed at length. We see no justifiable reason to deal with each and every argument canvassed by the counsel. These argument will be heard/decided in the criminal appeal but suffice it say that there is a prima facie case on the basis of depositions of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 to be read with depositions of P.W. 14 and P. W. 15 and hence, looking to the prima facie case, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and manner, in which, this appellant is involved in the offence for kidnapping and murder of Bishun Deo Bhagat, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court. 8. There is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence. Moreover, arising out of same Sessions Trial original accused no. 1-Sunil Oraon has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2012. His criminal appeal has been admitted but the prayer for suspension of sentence of similarly situated other co-accused-Sunil Oraon, Kali Munda and Jageshwar Oraon who are original accused nos. 1, 6 and 7 respectively have been rejected by this Court by details speaking order dated 1st October, 2012. The case of the present appellant is not different than the cases of the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 648 of 2012. 9. Looking to these evidences on record, we hereby reject the prayer for suspension of sentence awarded by the Trial Court to this appellant.