Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

I.A. No. 1161 of 2012. Case: Janardan Sao and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand. Jharkhand High Court

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberI.A. No. 1161 of 2012
CounselFor Respondents: Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
JudgesD. N. Patel and Shree Chandrashekhar, JJ.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 389(1)
Citation2013 (1) AJR 826
Judgement DateFebruary 04, 2013
CourtJharkhand High Court

Judgment:

D. N. Patel, J.

  1. Counsel for the State-A.P.P. submitted that the present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, awarded to appellant No. 1, Janardan Sao, who is original accused No. 1, in Sessions Trial No. 595 of 1993. When the matter was called out, counsel for the appellant (original accused No. 1) is absent, Previously also counsel for the appellant was either absent or had taken adjournment since last four times.

  2. We have heard counsel for the State, who has mainly submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon eye-witnesses. The weapon alleged to be holding in the hand of this appellant is Lathi and the deposition of P.W.2 is getting enough corroboration by other evidences on record including the deposition given by P.W.8, who is Dr. Ramsewak Sahu, who has carried out post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased, Ramlakhan Sao. P.W.2 is the eye-witness, who is also the informant of this case.

  3. Having heard learned A.P.P. and looking to the evidence on record, it appears that there is a prima facie case against this appellant-accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT