The court emphasized the need for careful consideration of relevant aspects and reasons for suspending the execution of sentence, especially in cases involving serious offences.

By the Court.- The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 389(2) of Cr PC praying for suspension of sentence awarded by the District and Sessions Judge-II. Godda in Sessions Trail No. 35 of 1998, whereby, the applicant, who is the sole appellant (original accused No.1), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months simple imprisoned.

2. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is primafacie case against this appellant, but as the criminal appeal is pending we are not much analyzing the evidence on record, but suffice it to say that case of the prosecution is bases on several eye-witnesses. Looking to the evidences of these eye-witnesses, i.e. that of PWs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10, it appears that they clearly narrated the role played by the present applicant. Fire arm has been used as per the evidence of these eye-witnesses and looking to the medical evidence given by Dr. Vijay Kumar Bhagat (PW 11), following are the injuries sustained by the deceased :

"(i) Multiple lacerated would 16 in number in size of 1/8" with blackening and cherring of the surrounding skip with skin margin inverted over frontal and parietal part of skull, both side of face and near nasal side of both eyes with pellet was intact.

(ii) Three lacerated wounds of size of 1/8" with blackening and cherring of surrounding skin with skin margin inverted over left shoulder and upper part of left side of chest with oozing of blood.

On Dissection : He found blood cloths on soft tissues scalp and face. Six pellets removed from concerned and face, few pellets entered into scalp cavity and has lacerated brain matters, blood was present in the brain substance. On dissection of thorax and shoulder he found blood was present in soft tissues, lungs were pale and normal. Pericardiam was intact, all chambers of heart were empty and normal. On further dissection he found no abnormality in spleen, liver and kidney and etc. The above said injury in his view gun shot injury, and head injury sustained by deceased, in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death."

3. Thus, evidences of the eye-witnesses get enough corroboration from the medical evidence as well as from the evidence given by PW 13, who is the Investigating Officer.

4. Counsel for the appellant has insisted that as he has argued out at length and his arguments may be dealt with at this stage of prayer for suspension of sentence.

5. Counsel for the appellant referred to the statement of the present appellant under Section 313 of the Cr PC because the date of the incident referred to in the statement is wrong and this has caused a great prejudice to the appellant.

6. We are no inclined to accept this contention mainly for the reason that looking to the evidences on record, it appears that correct date of the incident are referred to by every eye-witness. However, we are not going into analysis of the said argument at this stage of prayer for suspension of sentence because of pendency of the criminal appeal.

7. The counsel further submitted that there are two FIRs. This contention is also no accepted by this Court mainly because PW 10, who has given information is also an eye-witness and looking to his evidence, it appears that there is no FIR except the one marked Ext. 6 while the fardbeyan is Ext. No.2. Thus, formal FIR has been given Ext. No. 6 and therefore, this contention is also not accepted by this Court without going into the detail at this stage because the criminal appeal is pending.

8. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no specific allegation against this appellant for murder of the deceased because there are two accused in the sessions, trial and more than one