Order: Per D.N. Patel. J.: 1. The present appeal has already been Admitted vide order dated 6th February, 2013. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 429 of 2008 was called for from the Trial Court so as to appreciate the arguments for suspension of sentence of the appellant. 3. This appellant has been punished by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 429 of 2008 for life imprisonment mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also he has been punished for rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act. Both the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently. 4. Record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 429 of 2008 has been received by this Court and we have perused the same and heard the counsel for both the sides at length. 5. Looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against this appellant-accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that the case of prosecution is based upon more than one eye-witnesses who are P.W. 2 P.W. 3, P.W.4 & P.W.5 (Informant) Looking to their evidence, they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant-accused, who has used firearms and caused injuries upon the deceased by firearms. Their deposition is also getting enough corroboration by medical evidence given by P.W.6, Doctor Shailendra Kumar, who has carried post-mortem upon the body of the deceased. There are more than one dozen injuries by firearms. Moreover, the aforesaid depositions of the prosecution witness is also getting further corroboration by the deposition given by P.W.8, who is Investigating Officer and other evidences on record including P.W.9 who is Magistrate, who has recorded the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued out the case at length and raised several arguments including that one Laxman Rawani though as referred in First Information Report, he is an eye-witnesses, though he is not examined. This contention is not helpful to the appellant mainly for the reasons that: (i) Quantity of witnesses is not required to be seen if there are few eye-witnesses examined they are very trustworthy and reliable. There is no need to examine bundle of eye-witnesses. This contention is not helpful to the appellant mainly for the reasons that: (i) Quantity of witnesses is not required to be seen if there are few eye-witnesses examined they are very trustworthy and reliable. There is no need to examine bundle of eye-witnesses. (ii) Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that there is discrepancy between ocular and medical evidences. We see no reasons in accepting this contention at this stage for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the contrary, looking to the evidences on record, no other weapon has been used except firearms. Looking to the deposition of eye-witnesses, this appellant has used firearms and caused firearm injury, which is getting enough corroboration. We are not much narrating in detail how there is corroboration but suffice it to say that prima facie there is corroboration of medical evidence given by P.W.6. (iii) Counsel appearing for the appellant has also pointed out the manner of occurrence and number of shots fired, about this aspect there is inconsistency in the deposition of eye-witnesses. This contention is also not accepted by this court at this stage of suspension of sentence. There are several injuries upon the body of the deceased which are more than one dozen. Firearms injuries have been caused by this appellant and others as per P.W.5 who is an eye-witness and the informant. (iv) It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is no explanation of delay in lodging the First Information Report which is two and a half hours delay. We see no reason to deal with this argument at this stage but suffice it to say that there is no substance in this argument at all. (v) Eye-witnesses are chance witnesses as per the counsel for the appellant. This contention is also not accepted by this Court because informant is younger brother of the deceased. His presence at the scene of offence is natural as per evidence on record. This contention is therefore not accepted by this Court at this stage. 7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that several arguments have been canvassed but, all of them may not be dealt with by this Court, hence we are not dealing with rest of the arguments. This contention is therefore not accepted by this Court at this stage. 7. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that several arguments have been canvassed but, all of them may not be dealt with by this Court, hence we are not dealing with rest of the arguments. Suffice it to say that there is prima facie case against this appellant looking to the depositions of eye witnesses. 8. Looking to the evidences on record and looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which this appellant-accused is involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 9. Thus, there being no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence. Hence, the same is hereby rejected.