@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.N. Patel, J.@mdashPresent appeal is admitted. Records and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 188/317 of 2008 be called for from the trial court. Registry of this Court is directed to get the paper books prepared with neatly typed copy of depositions and other documents as required under Rule No. 190 and 191 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules 2001.
2. We have heard counsel of both the sides for suspension of sentence awarded by Judicial Commissioner-II- Khunti to the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 188/317 of 2008 by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15th/16th of May 2012. These appellants have been mainly punished for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment.
3. Having heard counsel of both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is prima-facie case against the appellant No. 1 and 2 namely Pawan Mahto and Chatuwa Mahto. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record. Looking to the depositions of P.W. -1, P.W. -2, P.W. -3 and P.W. -4, who are eye witnesses to the incident, their evidences are against appellant No. 1 and 2, who are original accused No. 1 and 2. But looking to these evidences of P.W. -1, P.W. -2, P.W. -3 and P.W. -4, it appears that appellant No. 3, who is also accused No. 3, has not caused any injury upon the body of the deceased. Moreover, depositions of P.W. -1, P.W. -2, P.W. -3 and P.W. -4, who are eye witnesses is getting enough corroboration by the deposition of P.W. -12, which is medical evidence, given by Dr. Tulsi Mahto, as well as post-mortem note, which is Ext-8 of the record of Sessions Trial and P.W. -7, who is informant and eye witness. Looking to these evidences on record, there is prima-facie case against appellant No. 1 and 2 (original accused No. 1 and 2), therefore, looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which these two appellants are involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution witnesses, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti to these two appellants. Hence prayer of suspension of sentence of these two appellants namely Pawan Mahto and Chatuwa Mahto is rejected. So far as appellant No. 3 namely Nirmala Devi is concerned, as stated herinabove, she has not caused any injury on the body of the deceased. She was also on bail during trial. Keeping in mind these evidences, there is prima-facie case in favour of appellant No. 3. We, therefore, suspend the sentence awarded to appellant No. 3 namly Nirmala Devi by Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15th/16th of May 2012 in Sessions Trial No. 188/317 of 2008, upon execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and also on the condition that appellant shall be available as and when her presence is required by this Court and she shall not change her residential address without prior permission of this Court.
