IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. (Cr.) No. 1574 of 2011
In
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 587 of 2007
Ganesh Singh ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
For the Appellant : M/s Nawal Kishore Prasad, A.K. Sahay, Advocates
For the State : Mr. V.K. Prasad, A.P.P.
rd
06/ Dated: 23 September, 2011
Oral order:
Per D.N. Patel, J.:
1.
The present interlocutory application has been preferred under
Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence,
awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Koderma, in
Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2005 whereby, the present appellant has been
punished for the offence punishable under Sections 364A and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment.
2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences
on record, it appears that there is prima facie case against the present
appellant. There are enough evidences against the present appellant. As the
criminal appeal is already pending, we are not much analyzing the
evidences on records, but, suffice it to say that the previously I.A. No. 2178
of 2009 was preferred for suspension of sentence, which was dismissed on
merits by a detailed speaking order dated 16 th November, 2009. Paragraph
nos. 3, 4 and 5 whereof read as under:
“3. Perused the record and proceedings of the trial court. Having
heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on
record, there is, prima facie, case against the appellant accused. As the
criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on
record. Suffice it to say that one businessman namely, Kamal Kedia, was
abducted and sizeable amount of ransom money was demanded by hatching
conspiracy by the accused persons which were tried in Sessions Trial No. 123
of 2005 as well as there are two more accused who are still absconding as on
today.
“4. Looking to the evidences on record that one witness i.e. P.W.12,
who has gone with money as ransom money has identified this present
appellantaccused. Looking to the evidences on record, there is enough
material against the present applicantaccused. Even, the ransom amount has
been recovered which is totally at Rs. 4,20,000/ (out of this, sizable amount
was recovered from present accused viz. Ganesh Singh), when the appellant
2.
accused was in the house of another coaccused namely Tulsi Yadav, the house
was raided and there was firing by accused side, upon the police also. As
separate case has been registered for recovery of ransom money and firing
upon the police. Money has also been identified by P.W.12. Likewise, looking
to the deposition of P.W.1, who is informant and other prosecutionwitnesses,
there is a, prima facie, case against the appellantaccused. Looking to the
gravity of offence, the quantum of punishment and the manner in which the
whole incident has taken place and looking to the role played by the
appellantaccused and also looking to the charge of conspiracy under Section
120B of the Indian Penal Code, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence
awarded by the trial court, to the appellantaccused.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued out much in detail
and insisted for further detail to be mentioned in the order, but, we are not
inclined to accept his request. Suffice it to say that ransom has been recovered,
there was firing upon the Police from the accused. In the Test Identification
Parade, money has been identified, present appellantaccused has also been
identified in Court by P.W.4. Two accused are still absconding and there is
enough other evidences by prosecutionwitnesses.”
3. Thereafter, one more interlocutory application was preferred by the
very same appellant bearing I.A. No. 773 of 2010 for the suspension of
sentence. This application was also dismissed on merits by a detailed
speaking order dated 23rd August, 2010 and paragraph no. 4 whereof reads
as under:
“4. Looking to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, specially
P.W.12 to be read with deposition given by P.W.1 and P.W.10, there is enough
evidence against the applicantaccused. Sizable amount of ransom money was
recovered, totaling Rs. 4,20,000/ (out of this, sizeable amount was recovered
from present accused viz. Ganesh Singh). This applicant is also identified by
P.W.1 in test identification parade.”
4. In view of the aforesaid evidences on record and looking to the
gravity of the offence, the quantum of punishment and the manner in
which the present appellant is involved in the offence, as alleged by the
prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence, awarded to the
present appellant, by the trial court.
5. There is no substance in this interlocutory application. Hence, the
same is, hereby, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
VK/