JUDGMENT 1. - Both the criminal appeals rise out of the same Judgment dated 28.11.2007, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 117/2001. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Mr. Hussain gave a parcha-bayan, on 18.11.1995. In parcha,bayan, he stated that in House No. 98C, Shyam Nagar, one group of doctors who have come from Om Path, Bombay, is staying. These doctors before one month, by doing him unconscious from injection, removed his right side kidney (gurda) by way of deceipt and these doctors have put the said kidney in the body of Mustaffa Gaddal, who is resident of Seria Country and he has been compelled by way of threatening from 'gunda elements' to leave Jaipur. Due to the weakness in his body, he is not in a position to move. 3. On the basis of this parcha-bayan, the police registered an FIR for the offence u/Ss. 307, 326, 325, 420 and 120B IPC. 4. Two separate appeals along-with application for suspension of sentence have been filed. On behalf of accused appellants Dr. Suresh Gupta and Kumari Seema Sayyed, Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance and on behalf of accused appellant Dr. Basant Fadiya, Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance. 5. Both the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants during the course of arguments submit that the injured has not been examined in this case, statements of prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other, prosecution witnesses. Both the learned counsel submit that the accused appellants were on bail during the course of trial, they are in judicial custody since 28.11.2007, they belong to a respective family and except Kumari Seema Sayyed, who is Nurse by profession, remaining accused appellants are doctors by profession. 6. On the other hand, learned PP controverted the arguments of both the learned counsel. He has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of PW 19 Madhvi Dinkar, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded the statement of the injured under section 164 Cr.P.C. as also certain paragraphs of the Judgment. Lastly, he submits that in this case two accused persons are absconding since beginning. Thus, the application for suspension of sentence moved by the accused appellants are liable to be rejected. 7. Chief Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded the statement of the injured under section 164 Cr.P.C. as also certain paragraphs of the Judgment. Lastly, he submits that in this case two accused persons are absconding since beginning. Thus, the application for suspension of sentence moved by the accused appellants are liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 8. The facts of the case clearly reveal that the aforesaid act of the accused appellants is against the humanity and it is a heinous offence not only against the human being but also against the whole society. In the instant case the accused appellants have removed the kidney (gurda) of Injured which is main and Important organ of the body. 9. In view of the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant application for suspension of sentence of the accused appellants. 10. Both the applications for-suspension of sentence thus stand rejected.Applications Rejected. *******