ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2020, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal. 2. The appellant herein stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by learned Session Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 88/2015 vide judgment dated 16/02/2016 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/­ in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for six months. 3. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that though the appellant was convicted for the aforesaid offence by the Session Judge vide judgment dated 16/02/2016 and his two previous applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail have been dismissed on merit vide orders dated 01/03/2017 and 17/01/2020 and he is in jail since 14/05/2015, but on identical set of facts, main accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra, who was earlier absconding, was tried and vide judgment dated 22/01/2020 (Annexure A/1), he has been acquitted from all the charges. Since the evidence in the case of the appellant is same as the case of Kanhaiya Lal Mishra and charge­sheet as well as other documents are also same and he has been tried on the basis of the record of criminal case of this proceeding and has ultimately been acquitted, therefore, the instant third bail application filed by the appellant deserves to be granted and his sentence deserves to be suspended. 4. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that co­accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra, who was earlier absconding when the appellant herein was tried for the aforesaid offence, was subsequently arrested and he was tried on the basis of original record and separate evidence was recorded in his case by recalling the witnesses and though he has been acquitted, but his acquittal would not be relevant for the purpose of the present appellant. He would rely upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Karan Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1037 , S.P.E. Madras v. K.V. Sundravelu, (1978) 2 SCC 514 and Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 SCC 191 to submit that the judgment of acquittal recorded in the subsequent case of co­accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra would have no relevancy on the present appellant/accused. 5. 5. Though the appellant herein as well as co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra were charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, but since Kanhaiya Lal Mishra was absconding he could not be tried along with the appellant herein, who was tried separately and was convicted for the aforesaid offence. Against the judgment of conviction, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant which is pending consideration and his earlier filed applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail have been rejected by this Court twice on merits vide orders dated 01/03/2017 and 17/01/2020. Meanwhile, co­accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra was arrested and he was put to trial and on the basis of evidence led therein, he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 22/01/2020 (Annexure A/1). 6. The question for consideration would be, whether the judgment of acquittal of co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra rendered in subsequent trial, arising out of the same transaction, would be relevant in the case of present appellant/accused and can he be granted suspension on that basis ignoring the earlier orders ? 7. This issue is no longer res integra as the Supreme Court in the matter of Karan Singh (supra) has already held that each case has to be decided on the evidence led in it and it has further been held that the case of the co-accused Ramhans depended upon the evidence led in it while the case of the appellant Karan Singh had to be decided only on the evidence led on it. The evidence led in Ramhans' case and the decision there arrived at on that evidence would be wholly irrelevant in considering the merits of the appellant's case. It has been observed by their Lordships as under :­ “4. … As the High Court pointed out, that observation has no application to the present case as here the acquittal of Ram Hans was not in any proceeding to which the appellant was party. Clearly, the decision in each case has to turn on the evidence led in it; Ram Hans's case depended on the evidence led there while the appellant's case had to be decided only on the evidence led in it. The evidence led in Ram Hans's case and the decision there arrived at on that evidence would be wholly irrelevant in considering the merits of the appellant's case.” 8. The evidence led in Ram Hans's case and the decision there arrived at on that evidence would be wholly irrelevant in considering the merits of the appellant's case.” 8. The decision rendered in Karan Singh (supra) has subsequently been followed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the matter of Rajan Rai (supra) wherein it has been clearly held that judgment of acquittal of co­accused rendered in earlier trial arising out of same transaction was wholly irrelevant in the case of the present accused who was tried separately. It has been observed as under :­ “10. … We are clearly of the view that the judgment of acquittal rendered in the trial of the other four accused persons is wholly irrelevant in the appeal arising out of the trial of the appellant Rajan Rai as the said judgment was not admissible under the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. Every case has to be decided on the evidence adduced therein. Case of the four acquitted accused persons was decided on the basis of evidence led there while the case of the present appellant has to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of his trial.” 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the principle of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the matter of Karan Singh (supra) followed with approval in Rajan Rai (supra), though co­accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra was charge­sheeted arising out of same transaction along with the appellant herein for aforesaid offence but since he was absconding, the appellant was tried separately and on the basis of the evidence led therein he has been convicted and the present appeal is being heard on the basis of evidence led in his case, whereas co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Sharma has been acquitted on the basis of the evidence recorded and led in his trial. As such, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Karan Singh (supra) followed in Rajan Rai (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Session Judge in Kanhaiya Lal Mishra's case (Annexure A/1) is not admissible under the provisions contained under Sections 40-44 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus, the appellant is not entitled for any benefit on the basis of that judgment. As such, we do not find any good ground to entertain this third bail application filed by the appellant on the basis of subsequent acquittal of co­accused Kanhaiya Lal Mishra. Moreover, so far as considering the said application on merits is concerned, since the earlier applications filed by the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail have already been rejected on merits twice by this Court vide orders dated 01/03/2017 and 17/01/2020, we do not find any good ground to entertain this repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of the appeal is hereby rejected.