ORDER : I.A. No. 1184 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of above-named appellants, under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 110 of 2021 arising out of Noamundi P.S. Case No. 01 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the appellants has been found guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each of them has to undergo further RI for six months. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that it is a case where the judgment of conviction is fully based upon the testimony of P.W. 8, who has been considered to be eye-witness to the occurrence but on consideration of the testimony in entirety it would be evident that P.W. 8 cannot be said to be eye-witness since there is wide contradiction in the testimony of P.W. 8, as recorded in his cross-examination. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 4. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records. 6. This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of appellants has gone through the testimony of P.W. 8 wherefrom it is evident that he has narrated the story and seen the appellants who have dragged his mother and killed her. He had further testified that when his father came into house, the accused persons entered into the house and killed his father also. 7. Admittedly, some contradiction is there in the testimony of P.W. 8 but that contradiction is not worth so as to disbelieve the prosecution version. 8. He had further testified that when his father came into house, the accused persons entered into the house and killed his father also. 7. Admittedly, some contradiction is there in the testimony of P.W. 8 but that contradiction is not worth so as to disbelieve the prosecution version. 8. This Court has also considered the expert report i.e., the blood which has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA profile and found from the FSL Report, which has been marked as Exhibit 11, that the blood-stained has been found to be matched and is said to be from the same origin. 9. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that since the version of the P.W. 8 gets fortified by the FSL report, and the learned trial Court taking into consideration the testimony of P.W. 8 vis-à-vis the FSL report, has considered the P.W. 8 to be an eye witness, which cannot be said to suffer from error. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the view, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 11. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands dismissed. 12. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration. 13. This Court before parting with the order and on consideration of the fact that parents have been killed and P.W. 8, who happens to be the son of the deceased, and as such the concern of this Court is take endeavor for the welfare of the surviving child. 14. In view thereof, let the Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to look into the matter by passing appropriate instruction to the respective Chairman/Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to look into these aspects of the matter for the purpose of rehabilitation of the child of the deceased [parents]. 15. Let this order be communicated to the Member Secretary, JHALSA forthwith.