JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. The present interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga in S.T. No. 55 of 2003 whereby this appellant has been convicted mainly for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and punished for life imprisonment. 2. We have heard the counsels for both sides and perused the evidences on record. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing the evidence on record, but, suffice it to say that looking to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it appears that this appellant was present at the scene of occurrence as on 29.03.2001 during late night hours. In this case murder of wife of original accused no.1 Devendra Sahu has taken place in the house of Devendra Sahu. This appellant was sitting with accused no.1 Devendra Sahu. There were illicit relation between the original accused no.1 and this appellant, as per the prosecution case. 3. Looking to the evidence on record of PW3 and other witnesses, they have prima facie established the date of occurrence, the place of occurrence, the manner in which the whole incident of murder has taken place in the house of original accused no.1 and the presence of this appellant at the scene of occurrence. PW3 has also stated that this appellant had also beaten the deceased. Moreover, looking to the medical evidence given by PW12, there were five injuries upon the body of deceased as per Exhibit4 which is the post mortem report. PW13 is the Investigating Officer who has also given a detail evidence which is corroborative to the depositions of other prosecution witnesses. Blood stained earth was also found from the house of Devendra Sahu who is husband of the deceased. At night hours when the murder has taken place, presence of this appellant Kalawati Devi was also there. Unless there is mens rea, her presence could not have been there in the house of somebody else. Dead body was also recovered from the house of Devendra Sahu with whom this appellant was having illicit relation, as per the prosecution case. This appellant was also absconding after the offence was registered on 30.03.2001. Unless there is mens rea, her presence could not have been there in the house of somebody else. Dead body was also recovered from the house of Devendra Sahu with whom this appellant was having illicit relation, as per the prosecution case. This appellant was also absconding after the offence was registered on 30.03.2001. Looking to the evidence on record of prosecution witnesses specially of PW3 who is daughter of the deceased and other evidences on record including of PW12, PW13, there is a prima facie case against this appellant accused. Moreover, previously also the prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by this Court by a detail speaking order dated 17th January, 2013 and there is no change in the circumstances whatsoever except efflux of time. 4. The basis of suspension of sentence has been enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: (i) 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. 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) (ii) 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) (iii) 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) 5. As a cumulative effect of aforesaid facts established by the prosecution witnesses and the judicial pronouncement and looking to the prima facie case against this appellant, gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which this appellant is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to this appellant by the trial court. Hence, there is no substance in this interlocutory application and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed. 6. I.A. No.7546 of 2013 stands dismissed.