JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. When the matter is called out, counsel for the appellant is absent. 2. The present interlocutory application (I.A. No. 3125 of 2015) has been preferred by the appellant under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence awarded to this appellant by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. VI, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 565 of 2007, whereby this appellant has been mainly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for life imprisonment and also fine of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed and in lieu thereof further imprisonment for 2 years have been awarded. This appellant has also been convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default he has also been ordered to undergo further imprisonment for 1 year. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the State, who has submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon more than one eye-witnesses, who are PW 1. PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 7. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are the independent eye-witnesses. PW 4 and PW 5 are also eye-witnesses and PW 7 is the informant injured eye-witness. Counsel for the State has relied upon the depositions of these eye-witnesses and submitted that there is prima facie case against this appellant. Preciously, also thrice the prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant have been rejected by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the State and looking to the evidence on record, there is prima facie case against this appellant-accused especially looking to the depositions of PW 1. PW 2, PW 3. PW 4, PW 5 and PW 7, who are the eyewitnesses of the incident. Looking to their evidence on record, they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant for causing murder of the deceased. Moreover, PW 7 is an injured eye-witness, whose injury has been proved by Dr. T.J. Minj, who is PW 12. The depositions of the eye-witnesses are also getting corroboration by the medical examination by PW 6, i.e., Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, who has carried out the post-mortem of the body of the deceased. 5. Moreover, PW 7 is an injured eye-witness, whose injury has been proved by Dr. T.J. Minj, who is PW 12. The depositions of the eye-witnesses are also getting corroboration by the medical examination by PW 6, i.e., Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, who has carried out the post-mortem of the body of the deceased. 5. Looking to the gravity of 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 tried Court. 6. Moreover, previously also prayer for suspension of sentence of this appellant has been rejected on (a) 17.7.2009, (b) 27.9.2010) and (c) 14.5.2012. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 6 (in fact it should have been numbered as 3, 4 and 5) of the order dated 14.5.2012 while rejecting IA No. 772 of 2012, preferred by this appellant, reads as under : "3. Counsel for the applicant has argued out the case in much detail. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much analysing the evidences on record. Suffice it to say that looking to the evidences of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5, who have witnessed the incident and they have narrated the incident in detail PWs 1, 2 and 3 are the independent witnesses next door neighbours. PWs 4 and 5 are the children of the deceased. Moreover, depositions of these witnesses have also been corroborated by the evidence given by injured eye-witness, PW 7, who is the informant. The injury report of the injured eye-witnesses has also been proved by Dr. T.J. Minz, i.e. by PW 12. 5. Looking to these evidences on record, there is enough material against the present applicant involving into the offence, as alleged by the prosecution which constitutes prima facie case. Moreover, there is also corroboration by the depositions given by PW 6, who is Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary, who has carried out post-mortem of the deceased. The weapon alleged in the hand of the present applicant is sharp-cutting instrument. The injury is also corroborative to the nature of the weapon in the hand of the accused. Immediate is the FIR and the present applicant is named in the FIR fine of Rs. of the Indian Penal Code writ petition has been preferred for getting back the amount of Rs. The injury is also corroborative to the nature of the weapon in the hand of the accused. Immediate is the FIR and the present applicant is named in the FIR fine of Rs. of the Indian Penal Code writ petition has been preferred for getting back the amount of Rs. 2,52,762/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty two thousand seven hundred and sixty two only), which was deposited by this petitioner despite there is no liability to make payment of any type of tax under any law much less as a service tax. Thus, the aforesaid amount was paid by mistake. Hence, it ought to have been given back to the petitioner. 6. In view of these evidences on record, looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the applicant is involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence, awarded to the appellant-accused, by the trial Court. Moreover, previously twice the applications, preferred by the applicant for suspension of sentence has been rejected by this Court. This is a third attempt without any change in the circumstance, this application has also been preferred." 7. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to this appellant by the trial Court. Hence, I.A. No. 3125 of 2015 is hereby disposed of. I.A. disposed of.