JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 7657 of 2016: 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence dated 5th December, 2011, awarded to applicants (original appellants) (Original accused No. 3 and 4), viz. Anant Mandal and Ishwar Mandal by 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda in S.C. No. 211/ 2008/S.T. No. 15/11, w hereby the concerned court directed the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence punishable under section 302/34 I.P.C. 2. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is a prima-facie case against these applicants-appellants. As the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much inclined to analyse the evidences on record, but suffice it to say that PW-13, who is the informant and eye-witness to the occurrence, has clearly narrated the role played by these two appellants. Moreover, looking to the evidences of PW-1, 5 and 7, it appears that there is enough corroboration of the deposition given by PW-13. Medical evidence is also corroborative of the depositions given by PW-13. Moreover, previously also prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by this court vide Order dated 17th September, 2012 and since then there is no change in circumstances except for passage of time. Paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the order dated 17th September, 2012 reads as under: "3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima-facie, case against the present appellants. As the criminal appeal is pending for final hearing, we are not much analysing the evidences on record, it appears that the father-informant (PW-13) and son deceased were sleeping in the same room. The accused came during night hours with weapons in their hands and assaulted the deceased, who was murdered on the spot. The role played by these two appellants was also narrated by the eyewitness, who is father-informant (PW-13). Clearly, immediate is the F.I.R. i.e. on 30th June, 2008 at about 6.30 a.m. by PW-13, who is the eyewitness. The accused came during night hours with weapons in their hands and assaulted the deceased, who was murdered on the spot. The role played by these two appellants was also narrated by the eyewitness, who is father-informant (PW-13). Clearly, immediate is the F.I.R. i.e. on 30th June, 2008 at about 6.30 a.m. by PW-13, who is the eyewitness. All the four accused including these two appellants were named in the F.I.R. The deposition of the eyewitness is getting enough corroboration by the deposition of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-7, who have rushed immediately at the room, where, the incidence has taken place and they saw the accused including these two appellants running away. Moreover, medical evidence given by Dr. Dilip Kumar Choudhary (PW-9) is also getting enough corroboration to the deposition of PW-13, who is the eyewitness of the incident. Looking to these evidences on record, it appears that there is, prima-facie, case against the present appellants. Moreover, looking to the gravity of the offence, quantum of punishment and the manner in which the present appellants are involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the present appellants by the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the appellants have not caused any injury upon the body of the deceased and, therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial court may be suspended. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that these two appellants have played vital role in commissioning the murder of the deceased, as stated by the eyewitness. They have been punished for the offence punishable under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants is not accepted by this Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence and, hence, the same is not accepted by this Court." 3. Counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that Appellant No. 1, viz. Anant Mandal is aged more than 70 years. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no substance in the prayer for suspension of sentence and, hence, the same is not accepted by this Court." 3. Counsel appearing for the applicants has submitted that Appellant No. 1, viz. Anant Mandal is aged more than 70 years. This contention alone is not useful for the purpose of suspension of sentence awarded to applicant-appellant Anant Mandal for the reason that if an offence is committed by an accused at an advanced age, then such an accused cannot take plea of advance age for his early release because his advance age neither makes the offence committed by him less punishable nor does it affect the quantum of punishment awarded to him. 4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khilari vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 2008 SC 1882 especially in paragraph 10, which reads as under: "10. In Anwari Begum vs. Sher Mohammad and Another, 2005 (7) SCC 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, 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 vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Puran vs. Rambilas and Another, (2001) 6 SCC 338 and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another, 2004 (3) SC 442." (Emphasis supplied) 5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramji Prasad vs. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Another, (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 practise 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) 6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Hasmat, (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 for 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. 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 vs. Narendra and Ramji Prasad vs. 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) 7. These aspects have not been considered by the High Court, which passing the impugned order." (Emphasis supplied) 7. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, age cannot be a criteria for suspension of sentence, otherwise the order will suffer from non- application of mind and the prayer for suspension of sentence should be decided under the guidelines contained in the aforesaid decisions. 8. Therefore, Looking to the aforesaid evidences on record, it appears that there is a prima-facie case against these appellants and therefore, looking to the gravity of offence, the quantum of punishment and the manner in which these applicants-appellants are involved in the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence, awarded by the trial court, to the present applicants-appellants. 9. There is no substance in the prayer made in this interlocutory application, which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.