JUDGMENT 1. - This application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicants - Appellants who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui vide judgment dated 29.1.2004 in Sessions Case No. 75/02. 2. Appellant Shaitan Singh who had been convicted for the offences under Section 326 and 324 I.PC. and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation, and to simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. respectively. 3. Applicants Lakhan Singh and Dashrath Singh have been convicted for the offences under Section 307 and 324 I.RC. and have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for eight years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and to simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. All other applicants have been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act with the direction to pay compensation to the injured persons. 4. I have heard learned counsel for applicants, learned PR for the State and have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the relevant record. 5. Learned counsel for applicants - Appellants has contended on the basis of the cases or Kulwant Singh v. Amarjit Singh (2000) 3 SCC 290 , P.D. Devasaykutty v. State of Kerala (1990 Supp SCC 144) and Sudhir & Ors. v. State of M.P. JT 2001(2) SC 274 , that the cross case which is pending against the complainant party has not been decided simultaneously with the instant case, as a result of which the case of the present applicants has been seriously prejudiced. The cross case has been kept pending on the ground that one of the accused in that case being in Army is not turning up to face the trial. He has submitted that the impugned judgment rendered in the instant case is illegal. Referring to the materials on record, learned counsel has pointed out that as per the site inspection memo blood has been found near the well situated in the field of accused party which clearly indicates that the complainant party was the aggressor. The Injuries found on the persons of the accused have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses indicating their un-trustworthiness. The Injuries found on the persons of the accused have not been explained by the prosecution witnesses indicating their un-trustworthiness. There was no repetition of injuries. Besides, this, even if the cross cases have not been decided simultaneously, atleast the appeals arising out of the said cross cases ought to be decided together to avoid contradictory judgments and to do real justice between the parties which will take patty long time. His contention is that otherwise also his appeal is not likely to be heard and decided in near future looking to the huge pendency of such appeals in the High Court. He has, therefore, urged that the sentence imposed upon the applicants may be suspended during the pendency of their appeal. 6. Learned P.R has strongly opposed the application but he could not controvert the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants. He has also not cited any authority to the contrary. 7. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. 8. Having regard to the submissions made at the bar touching the merits of the appeal, the nature of offences found proved against them, the evidence on record, the fact that there is no immediate prospect of the appeal being heard and disposed of in near future and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to suspend the sentence imposed upon Shaitan Singh, Lakhan Singh and Dashrath Singh during the pendency of their appeal. The order regarding payment of amount of compensation also deserves to be stayed till the decision of the appeal.In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the sentences imposed upon applicants Shaitan Singh, Lakhan Singh and Dashrath Singh shall remain suspended and the order, requiring Sawant Singh, Ram Singh, Krishnapal Singh, Sawai Singh and Harendra Pal Singh to pay the amount of compensation to be given to the injured shall remain suspended/that the disposal of this appeal if each one of them furnishes a personal found in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- together with one surety in the like amount/to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before that court on 5.4.2004 or as and when called upon to do so. *******