JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. 1. This appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 7th January, 2014 and the record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2012 was called for from the trial court so as to appreciate the argument for suspension of sentence, under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. These two appellants have been convicted mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/to each of these two accused and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, by the Additional Sessions JudgeIII, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2012 vide judgment dated 30th April, 2013. 3. This Court has received the record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2012 and we have perused the same and heard learned counsel for both the sides, at length. 4. Looking to the evidences on record, there is prima facie case against these appellants accused. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the evidence given by P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6, there is prima facie case against these two appellants accused. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued out the case at much length and pointed out the evidence laid down before the trial court by the prosecution. When we raised the question to the learned counsel for the appellants, he has submitted that let all his arguments be dealt with and let further speaking order be passed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no abetment on the part of the appellants for committing suicide nor they have committed murder of the deceased. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has not examined neighbours as witnesses and whatever earlier incidence between the appellant husband and deceased wife has been carried are of the year 2006 and they are much older in point of time. Learned counsel for the appellants has also heavily relied upon the deposition given by P.W.4, who is the daughter of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants has also heavily relied upon the deposition given by P.W.4, who is the daughter of the deceased. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that looking to the totality of the evidences on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt. There was no presence of these two appellants at the scene of offence as on date of occurrence. The house was bolted from inside. Looking to the evidence given by P.W.4, the deceased was suffering from Schizophrenia and she herself has committed suicide, even as per the evidence given by P.W.6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (2013) 7 SCC 192 . 7. None of the aforesaid arguments is being accepted by this Court for suspension of sentence. From the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, it prima facie appears that appellant no. 1 is husband of the deceased, who is a Lecturer of Chemistry, but, he had no good chemistry with his wife. He was constantly in search of another lady who is appellant no. 2. He was residing with appellant no. 2 in the adjacent room and has stated that she is so called married wife of appellant no. 1. The appellant no. 1 is Hindu and his first wife was alive, as on date of second marriage. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much going into the detail of this type of allegations and arguments, but, suffice it to say that the deceased had already written a letter which is exhibited as ExhibitsX, X/2 and Miscellaneous Case No. 08 of 2006 was instituted against the so called loving husband (appellant No. 1) who is staying with another lady. Looking to the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also looking to the documents at ExhibitsX, X/2 and X/3, there is prima facie case against these two appellants. Moreover, the depositions given by these three witnesses is also getting enough corroboration by the deposition given by P.W.5. Looking to the evidence given by Dr. J. Srinivas Rao (P.W.5), there was also antemortem injury upon the body of deceased. At this stage, we are not going into the detail that had a neighbour been examined, there would have been a better prosecution case. Looking to the evidence given by Dr. J. Srinivas Rao (P.W.5), there was also antemortem injury upon the body of deceased. At this stage, we are not going into the detail that had a neighbour been examined, there would have been a better prosecution case. We are not concerned with the quantity of the evidence, we are concerned with the quality of the evidence. As this is a stage of suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are not doing fine dissection of evidence given by all prosecution witnesses, but, suffice it to say that there is enough evidence against these appellants and, therefore, there is prima facie case against these two appellants. 8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr., as reported in (2002) 9 SCC 366 , in paragraph no. 3, as under: “3. Absolutely no reason is shown by the learned Single Judge for adopting this exceptional course in a case where an accused was found guilty by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The normal practice in such cases is not to suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Hasmat, as reported in (2004) 6 SCC 175 , in paragraph nos. 6 to 9, as under: “6. Section 389 of the Code deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending the appeal and release of the appellant on bail. There is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed. If he is in confinement, the said court can direct that he be released on bail or on his own bond. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. 7. The requirement of recording reasons in writing clearly indicates that there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. 7. The appellate court is duty bound to objectively assess the matter and to record reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant case, the only factor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation of misuse of liberty during the period the accused respondent was granted parole. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by a judgment dated 24102001 had found the accused respondent guilty. Criminal Appeal No. 100DB of 2002 was filed by the respondent. The fact that during the pendency of the appeal the accused respondent was on parole goes to show that initially the accused respondent was not given the benefit of suspension of execution of sentence. The mere fact that during the period of parole the accused has not misused the liberties does not per se warrant suspension of execution of sentence and grant of bail. What really was necessary to be considered by the High Court was whether reasons existed to suspend the execution of sentence and thereafter grant bail. The High Court does not seem to have kept the correct principle in view. 9. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal it was held by this Court that in cases involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. The impugned order of the High Court does not meet the requirement. In Vijay Kumar case it was held that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court, which passing the impugned order.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khilari v. State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 2008 S.C. 1882 especially in paragraph 10, which reads as under: “10. In Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad and Anr. [ 2005 (7) S.C.C. 326 ] it was, inter alia, observed as follows: “7. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court’s order shows complete non-application of mind. Though detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a mater of course. 8. There is a need to indicate in the order, reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are : 1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; 2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; 3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from nonapplication of mind as was noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. { (2002) 3 S.C.C. 598 }; Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. { (2001)6 SCC 338 )} and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC 442].” (Emphasis supplied) 11. { (2002) 3 S.C.C. 598 }; Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. { (2001)6 SCC 338 )} and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [JT 2004 (3) SC 442].” (Emphasis supplied) 11. As a cumulative effect of the prima facie case against the appellants, judicial pronouncements and also looking to the gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the appellants are involved in the offence of murder of deceased, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 187 of 2012. Hence, the prayer for suspension of sentence is, hereby rejected.