ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor, on application (No.708/2021) for suspension of sentences. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor does not want to file the reply on the application for suspension of sentences. 3. By the instant application preferred under Section 389 Cr.P.C, applicant-appellant has craved for suspending the sentences handed down by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005 No.2, Udaipur, (for short, 'learned trial Court'), by its verdict dated 28.09.2021 in Sessions Case No.58/2019 (CIS No.20/2019).Learned trial Court, by the aforesaid verdict, convicted the applicant-appellant for offence under Sections 450 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Arguing on the application for suspension of sentences, it is submitted by learned counsel as per admission made by prosecutrix TV (PW.2), there is a dispute in relation to land between the parties; prosecutrix has admitted that compromise has taken place between the parties; in relation to that dispute, murder of Mangia took place; there is enmity between the parties, therefore, applicant-appellant has falsely been implicated in this case; as per exhibit B.2, signature of prosecutrix is present on Police document exhibit P.2 but subsequently prosecutrix has stated that signature has been taken forcefully; Smt. Varki Devi (PW.4) mother of prosecutrix has also admitted that compromise has taken place between the parties in regard to dispute of land and compromise has been settled for an amount of Rs.51,000/-; applicant-appellant has been handed down a sentence of ten years' Rigorous Imprisonment; final decision of the appeal is likely to take considerable time, and, therefore it would not be appropriate to keep applicant-appellant under further incarceration. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentences and stated that prosecutrix TV has fully supported the story of prosecution; and even during the trial, benefit of bail has not been granted to the applicant-appellant. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, particularly looking to the facts that prosecutrix has fully supported the story of prosecution; prosecutrix has categorically identified the accused-appellant and during the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, prosecutrix has stated that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to allow the application for Suspension of Sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant-appellant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the application preferred by the applicant-appellant, Sanjay S/o Sh. Amritlal Meena, under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.