Judgment D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has already been Admitted vide order dated 8th January, 2013 and the record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2006 was called for from the concerned Trial Court so as to appreciate the arguments for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2006 has been received by this Court and we have perused the same. 3. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is, prima facie, case against these appellants. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the case of the prosecution is based upon more than one eye witnesses, who are P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5. P.W.3 and P.W. 4 are injured eye witnesses. These three witnesses as well as P.W. 6 have clearly narrated the role played by these three appellants in causing murder of the deceased. The weapons alleged to have been used are “Farsa and Sword”. 4. In view of these evidences on record and looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which these appellants are involved in the murder of the deceased, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to these three appellants by the Trial Court. 5. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the evidences are of the relatives and therefore, the sentence awarded to them may be suspended. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that out of the total witnesses there are few injured eye witnesses and at this stage, we are not inclined to analyze in detail the evidences given by them. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellants has also submitted that neither I.O nor Doctor has been examined in this case. Hence also, the sentence awarded to them may be suspended. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that this is a stage of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, we are concerned with the prima facie case against these appellants. Hence also, the sentence awarded to them may be suspended. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that this is a stage of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At this stage, we are concerned with the prima facie case against these appellants. On the basis of the evidences on record as stated herein above, the case of the prosecution is based upon more than one eye witnesses who are P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and therefore, we are not much discussing the other evidences on record. 7. Looking to these evidences on record and the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court. 8. There is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence awarded to the present appellants by the Trial Court. Hence, the same is hereby, rejected. Bail rejected.