ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. After several rejections of the prayer for suspension of sentence on different dates, by different Division Benches of this Court in different interlocutory applications, once again one more interlocutory application has been preferred by appellant no. 1 for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, there is a prima facie case against this applicant-accused (appellant no.1). In detail, the orders have been passed by this Court while rejecting the prayer for suspension of sentence on earlier occasions. For the ready reference, table showing details of rejections of the prayer for suspension of sentence is as under: Sl. No. Case No. Date 1 I.A. No. 5202 of 2013 25th July, 2013 2 I.A. No. 1038 of 2014 21st April, 2014 3 S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 620809 of 2014 19th August, 2014 (By the Hon'ble Supreme Court) 4 I.A. No. 5305 of 2014 16th December, 2015 3. We have perused the evidences on record and looking to the evidences of prosecution witnesses, including P.W.10, P.W.11informantfather of the deceased, P.W.25, P.W.29, P.W.30, P.W.31, P.W.32, P.W.33, P.W.34 to be read with several documentary evidences including Exhibits8, 11, 11/1, 11/2, 11/3 and Exhibit2/6seizure list and also looking to the other evidences on record like evidence given by P.W.16Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad, there is a prima facie case against this applicant. Hence, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 609 of 2011, whereby, this applicant has been mainly convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 thereof for life imprisonment. This applicant has also been convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 thereof as well as under Section 120B thereof. 4. Much has been argued out by the learned counsel for the applicant on the merits of the case that nothing has been stated by any of the prosecution witnesses against this applicant-accused. 4. Much has been argued out by the learned counsel for the applicant on the merits of the case that nothing has been stated by any of the prosecution witnesses against this applicant-accused. We are not accepting this contention, on the contrary, there is enough evidence against this applicant-accused, but, as the criminal appeal is pending, we are not discussing in detail the evidences on record, otherwise, nothing is left out at all to be decided at the time of final hearing of this criminal appeal. 5. Moreover previously also, as stated hereinabove, on more than one occasions, prayer for suspension of sentence have been rejected, repeatedly by this Court. 6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khilari v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2008 (3) East Cr C 359 (SC) : AIR 2008 S.C. 1882 especially in paragraph 10, which reads as under: “10. In Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad and Anr. 2005 (4) East Cr C 196 (SC) : [ 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. 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 non-application of mind as was noted by this Court, in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. 2002 (2) East Cr C 107 (SC) : { (2002) 3 S.C.C. 598 }; Puran etc. v. Rambilas and Anr. etc. 2001 (2) East Cr C 118 (SC) : { (2001)6 SCC 338 )} and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. 2004 (2) East Cr C 140 (SC) : [JT 2004 (3) SC 442].” (Emphasis supplied) 7. 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) 8. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Hasmat, as reported in 2004 (3) East Cr C 109 (SC) : (2004) 6 SCC 175 , in paragraph nos. 6 to 9, as under: 4 “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. 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 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 24-10-2001 had found the accused-respondent guilty. Criminal Appeal No. 100-DB 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. 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) 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is a prima facie case against this applicant. Looking to gravity of offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which this applicant is involved in the offences as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to him by the trial court. This appellant has not left any stone unturned to get the suspension of sentence order, even on merit ground, which have been rejected by this Court and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no substance in this interlocutory application and, hence the same is, hereby, dismissed.