SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1875

D.N.PATEL
Lukman Ansari @ Lukman Mian – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 3455 of 2016:

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded to these appellants by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 271 of 2008. These appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC, for life imprisonment.

2. Having heard the counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is a prima-facie case against these appellant-accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, especially, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6, they have clearly narrated the role played by these appellants in causing murder of the deceased-Tamanna Bibi.

3. Previously also, the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by a detailed speaking order vide orders dated 29.04.2013 and 20.09.2014. Paragraph nos. 5 to 9 of the order dated 29.04.2013 read as under:

“(5) Counsel for the State-A.P.P. vehemently submitted that the date of occurrence is 17th July, 2007.The marriage of the original accused N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top