Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2759 (JHR)

Akhilesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2018-12-14

D.N.PATEL

body2018
ORDER : I.A. No. 4059 of 2016: 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded to this appellant by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat, district-Bokaro. This appellant was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2009 for life imprisonment. 2. Having heard the counsel for the State and looking to the evidence on record there is a prima-facie case against this appellant-accused. Moreover, previously also the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by detail speaking order dated 19.03.2013 and there is no change of circumstance whatsoever thereafter. 3. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the said order read as under: "3. This appellant has been punished for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of his wife as well as he has been punished for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and he has also been punished for seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bermo at Tenughat, Bokaro vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th January, 2013 and 18th January, 2013 respectively in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2009. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima-facie, case against the present appellant. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the incident has taken place on 20th October, 2008. The name of deceased was Sangita Devi, who was aged about 24 years, in the year 2008. The deceased was married with the appellant on 26th April, 2007 and approximately within one and half year, the incident has taken place. Looking to the depositions given by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, there is, prima-facie, case against the present appellant-accused. There is demand of dowry. Looking to the depositions of PW-5 and PW-6 to be read with the deposition given by PW-8, who is the Investigating Officer, to be read with Ext.2 and Ext.8, which are seizure list and confessional statement of the present appellant-accused respectively, there is recovery of weapons. There is demand of dowry. Looking to the depositions of PW-5 and PW-6 to be read with the deposition given by PW-8, who is the Investigating Officer, to be read with Ext.2 and Ext.8, which are seizure list and confessional statement of the present appellant-accused respectively, there is recovery of weapons. Thus looking to the totality of the evidences on record, there is prima-facie case against the present appellant-accused. 5. In view of these evidences on record and looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present appellant-accused is involved in the offences, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the present appellant by the trial court. There is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant and, hence, the same is, hereby, rejected." 4. In view of the evidences given by the prosecution witness nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 there is prima-facie case against this appellant-accused. The depositions given by these witnesses are getting enough corroboration by the depositions given by PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 Medical evidence given by PW-7 is also corroborative to the depositions given by the prosecution witnesses. 5. Thus looking to the prima-facie case, gravity of the offence and quantum of punishment, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to this appellant by the trial court. 6. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application stands dismissed. 7. We hereby direct the Registry to explain why the paper book is not prepared till today despite the order passed by this Court on 26th February, 2013. Immediately the explanation will be given. Paper book shall be prepared as per the direction given by this Court on 26th February, 2013, if not prepared so far, within a period of four weeks from today. 8. In this case, there is conviction under Section 304(B) as well as under Section 302 to be read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Registry is also directed to send a copy of the paper book along with judgment of the trial court to the Director, Jharkhand State Judicial Academy, Dhurwa, Ranchi. Application rejected.