Order Per D.N. Patel, J.Present application [I.A.(Cr.) NO.1838 of 2009] has been preferred under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded by the Sessions Court to the present applicant, who is original appellant-accused no. 1, for the offence punishable .under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 1997. 2. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides at length. 3. Counsel for the appellant-accused has argued out the case in much details and submits that this is a second attempt. Previously also prayer for suspension of sentence was not granted by this Court. 4. Counsel for the appellant has argued out the case on several aspects of the matter including the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and that there are enough omission and contradiction in the dying declaration and no examination of Dr. Shila Joshep, in whose presence dying declaration was recorded by P.W. 10, Anjali Lakra, who finds signature of Dr. Shila Joshep in the Fardbeyan. 5. Since the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record. Suffice it to say, that looking to the depositions of the witnesses examined before the trial court and looking to the evidences before the trial court, there is a prima facie case against the appellant-accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we would like to mention only in short that incident has taken place on 17th March, 1995 and the P.W.10, who is police officer, recorded the statement of the deceased (Sukhdeep Kaur) in the Hospital, who received burn injuries that the present appellant-accused pouring kerosene oil upon her and her husband, Charanjeet Singh lit fire upon her.. Thus, deceased was ablaze by both the accused. Statement was recorded by P.W. 10 which is dying declaration. Parents of the deceased were also present, who are also examined as P.W. 13 and P.W. 14. As per the deposition of P .W.10 (Anjali Lakra), she has stated that in presence of Dr. Shila Joshep, statement was recorded and Dr. Shila Joshep has also signed in the Fardbeyan of the deceased, though Dr. Shila Joshep has not examined by the prosecution. Another Dr. R. Bhagat, P.W. 7, who has been examined and he was also in the same Hospital and has identified the signature of Dr. Shila Joshep, statement was recorded and Dr. Shila Joshep has also signed in the Fardbeyan of the deceased, though Dr. Shila Joshep has not examined by the prosecution. Another Dr. R. Bhagat, P.W. 7, who has been examined and he was also in the same Hospital and has identified the signature of Dr. Shila Joshep on Fardbeyan which is marked as Ext.-2/1. 6. Thus looking to the evidences of P.W.13, P.W.14, P.W. 10 and P.W. 7 to be read with Fardbeyan of the deceased, Sukhdeep Kaur, there is a prima facie case against the appellant-accused. 7. As the criminal appeal is pending, therefore, we are restrained much analyzing the evidences on record but looking to the aforesaid depositions, there is a prima facie case against the appellant-accused and looking to the gravity of the offence and the quantum of punishment and the manner in which the appellant is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the appellant-accused, by the trial court. 8. There is no substance in the present interlocutory application and hence, I.A.(Cr.) No. 1838 of 2009 is hereby dismissed.