JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has been admitted by order dated 15.05.2013 and the record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2002 was called for from the trial court so as to appreciate the arguments for suspension of sentence. 2. This appellant is the original accused no. 2 in S. T. No. 18 of 2002. 3. This appellant has been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge 4th, Hazaribagh in S. T. No. 18 of 2002 mainly for the offences punishable under Section 4 (b)(i) of the Explosive Substance Act for R.I. for ten years and he has also been punished under Section 25 (1B)(a) of the Arms Act for R.I. for three years as well as for the fine and is also punished under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act for R.I. for three years and fine. All the sentences have been ordered to be run concurrently. 4. This Court has received the record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2002 and we have perused the same and heard the counsel for both the sides at length. 5. Looking to the evidences on record especially of P.W. Nos. 3 to 14, there is a prima facie case against this appellant. Looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the police got information that Area Commander – Sohan Bhuian of prohibited organisation M.C.C. 2was staying in the house of the present appellant. Police force was deployed and they surrounded the house of the present appellant. Six persons were arrested on the spot and one of them is this appellant. The houses of these accused were searched in presence of independent witnesses as well as in the presence of police officers who were present at the time of raid carried out and – (i) a double barrel gun bearing no. 72818 manufactured from Indian Ordinance Factory was seized from the left shoulder of Ganesh Kumar Das who is accused no. The houses of these accused were searched in presence of independent witnesses as well as in the presence of police officers who were present at the time of raid carried out and – (i) a double barrel gun bearing no. 72818 manufactured from Indian Ordinance Factory was seized from the left shoulder of Ganesh Kumar Das who is accused no. 1 in S. T. No. 18 of 2002; (ii) The said gun was loaded with two live cartridges of 12 bore; (iii) Pouch for keeping cartridges was also found out and it was containing three live cartridges of 12 bore; (iv) One single barrel gun containing one live cartridge was also seized from the left shoulder of one Narendra Ganjhu who was also wearing khakhi dress; (v) A double barrel gun loaded with two live cartridges was seized from inner courtyard of the house of the present appellant; (vi) A country made pistol of 12 bore and four khakhi bags which were full of articles were also seized and by opening these pithu bags, some cash was found out and four empty cartridges were also seized; and (vii) Over and above, screw driver and other articles, naxals literature and other books, some receipts and two old military coloured dresses etc. were also found out and seized. 6. Moreover, looking to the evidences on record, there are some confessional statements also recorded and it has also been brought on record looking to the paragraph no. 39 of the judgment of the learned trial court that this appellant has also participated in murder 3of one Raju Sao in the leadership of Sohan Bhuian who is Area Commander of prohibited organisation M.C.C. Moreover, this appellant is also involved in the murder of A. T. Thomas. These arms, ammunitions and naxal material etc. were found out and looking to the evidences of prosecution witnesses from P.W. Nos. 3 to 14, they clearly stated the role played by this appellant in commissioning the offenced as stated above for which he has been punished. P.Ws 11 and 13 have also stated about the articles seized, and therefore, despite P.Ws 1 and 2 who are seizure list witnesses turned hostile, there is a prima facie case against this appellant. 7. Hence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to him by the Additional Sessions Judge 4th, Hazaribagh. P.Ws 11 and 13 have also stated about the articles seized, and therefore, despite P.Ws 1 and 2 who are seizure list witnesses turned hostile, there is a prima facie case against this appellant. 7. Hence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentences awarded to him by the Additional Sessions Judge 4th, Hazaribagh. Looking to the prima facie case, gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which this appellant is involved in the offences as alleged by the prosecution, there is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence and the same is hereby rejected.