JUDGMENT 1. - In the revision petition filed by the petitioners under section 397 read with 401. Cr. P.C. which is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Ajmer Camp Kishangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 67/2005 upholding the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh (Ajmer), a prayer has been made for suspension of sentence till the disposal of the revision petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is delay of 111/2 hours in medical examination of the injured. There is also a delay of 141/2 hours in lodging the F.I.R. after the occurrence. The prosecution witnesses, namely: Banshi Lal P.W. 2. Narayan Singh P.W. 3, Raju P.W. 4 and Badri Prasad P.W. 5 have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has also not examined the investigating officer. According to him, the learned Courts below have committed grave illegality in recording concurrent findings of guilt against the petitioners and sentencing them for the offences under sections 325/34. 323 and 341, I.P.C. Learned P.P. has stoutly opposed the prayer. Supporting the Judgments of the learned Courts below, he has submitted that both the learned Courts below have dealt with all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. The Courts below have given concurrent findings. The scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited. The Court cannot enter upon a detailed appreciation of evidence on record particularly at the stage of suspension of sentence and cannot upset the well considered findings of guilt and sentence passed against the petitioners. 3. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made at the bar in the light of the relevant record. I have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the Judgment of the Trial Court. I have also looked into the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the following authorities: 1. Niru Bhagat v. Emperors, AIR 1922 Patna 582 2. J.K. Devaiya v. State of Coorg., AIR 1956 Mysore 51 ; 3. Harnam Singh and others v. State, 1982 Cr L 1818 : 1982 (19) ACC 220 ; 4. Re: T. Subbi Reddy, 1984 Cr. L. 502 ; 5. Bhopal Singh and others v. State of Raj., 1989 WLN (UC) 411 ; 6. J.K. Devaiya v. State of Coorg., AIR 1956 Mysore 51 ; 3. Harnam Singh and others v. State, 1982 Cr L 1818 : 1982 (19) ACC 220 ; 4. Re: T. Subbi Reddy, 1984 Cr. L. 502 ; 5. Bhopal Singh and others v. State of Raj., 1989 WLN (UC) 411 ; 6. Shyama and others v. State of Raj., 2003 (2) RCC 947 : 7. Narendra Sharma and others v. State of Raj., 2006 (2) RCC 291 ; 8. Raghunath v. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 1 SCC 398 : 2003 (2) AIC 229 : 2003 (46) ACC 139 : 9. Nar Singh and others v. State of Raj., 2000 (2) RCC 1299 ; 10. Ram Sahai v. State of Raj. and others, 1997 RCC 469 : 11. Ramdayal v. Emperors, AIR 1929 Nagpur 113 ; 12. Patey Singh and another v. Emperor, AIR 1931 All 609 : 13. Bhagirath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976) 1 SCC 20 : 14. Debendra Chandra Sarkar and others v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Calcutta 458 ; 15. Chandra Shekhar and another v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 (1) RCC 160 . 5. A perusal of these authorities makes it abundantly clear that they do not have any direct bearing on the question of suspension of sentence. These pertain to the final decision of the cases. Therefore, these are of little help to the petitioners at this stage. 6. The contentions touching the appreciation of evidence raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners can at best be appropriately dealt with at the time of admission of this revision petition which has yet not been admitted. 7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences touch proved against the petitioners, the evidence and materials on record in support thereof, I do not find it a case fit for suspension of sentence. 8. Hence, the prayer for interim relief of suspension of sentence is disallowed at this stage. However. the same may again be pressed if the revision petition is admitted.List the revision petition for admission on 9.10.2006.Petition Disposed of. *******