Per D.N. Patel, J.

Present appeal has been admitted vide order dated 14th January, 2013.

2. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2008 was called for from the Trial Court so as to appreciate the argument for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2008 has been received by this Court and we have perused the record.

4. We have heard the counsel for both the sides for suspension of sentence awarded to this appellant by the Trial Court-Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa. This appellant has been punished for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Budhni Bhumij.

5. Looking to the evidences on record there is, prima facie, case against this appellant-accused. As the Criminal Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon the depositions of more than one eye witnesses who are P.W. 1 and PW. 4. Looking to the depositions of PW. 1 and P.W. 4, they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant-accused for causing murder of the deceased. Their depositions are, also getting further corroboration by the deposition of PW. 3 as well as by the deposition of P.W. 6 who is Doctor M. Lugun who has carried out post mortem of the body of the deceased. Looking to these evidences, there is prima facie, case against this appellant.

6. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is discrepancy between ocular evidences and medical evidences and therefore, the sentence awarded to this appellant may be suspended. We do not agree with this submission. Looking to the evidences on record, it appears that P.W. 6 Doctor is not an eye witness. Whereas, P.W. 1 an P.W. 4 are the eye witnesses who have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant that he has entered into the house for committing rape upon P.W. 1 and it was resisted by P.W. 1 and during the process of resistance, the murder of deceased has taken place. There is also strangulation by this appellant. Every detail has been given by P.W. 1 and PW. 4 in their depositions so far as the murder of the deceased is concerned Looking to the evidence given by PW. 6 in his deposition, the injury sustained by the deceased cannot be said prima facie that there is any inconsistency between ocular evidence and medical evidence.

7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khilari vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in AIR 2008 S.C. 1882 [: 2009(2) JLJR (SC)110] especially in paragraph 10, which reads as under:-

"10, In Anwari Begum vs. Sher Mohammad and Anr.* {(2005)7 S.C.C. 326}, it was, inter alia, observed as follows:-

"7. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

8. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are:-

1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

3 Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. An