JUDGMENT : I.A. No.839 of 2025 1. On earlier occasion one interlocutory application being I.A. No.5372 of 2024 filed by the appellant, was dismissed as not pressed. 2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Seraikella, Kharsawan, in connection with Sessions Trial No.75 of 2020, arising out of Seraikella P.S. Case No.54 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.385 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo S.I. for six months. He has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the conviction is based upon the evidence, even though, there is no eye witness to the occurrence. 4. It has been submitted that even the evidence to convict the appellant based upon the principle of circumstantial evidence, is also not available. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is therefore a fit case for suspension of sentence. 6. While on the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 7. It has been contended that the prosecution case is that the mother of the deceased, i.e., six months old female child, has been kicked out from the house of the present appellant where she was living as a concubine but when she had demanded the child then the appellant had refused to handover. The mother of the deceased child when came to the house of the appellant to take back the female child, then she came to know that the child has been murdered, thereafter, the case has been instituted. The dead body has been recovered from the burial place on the basis of confession made by the present appellant. 8. The mother of the deceased child when came to the house of the appellant to take back the female child, then she came to know that the child has been murdered, thereafter, the case has been instituted. The dead body has been recovered from the burial place on the basis of confession made by the present appellant. 8. The fact about the death having been occurred inside the house of the present appellant, has not been disputed by the appellant and as such, the learned Trial Court while applying the provision as contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, has passed the judgment of conviction, hence, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 9. We have heard the 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 along with other exhibits, as available in the Trial Court Records. 10. This Court, on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the testimony of mother of the deceased child, who has been examined as P.W.5, namely, Radhika Sardar has found that P.W.5, the mother of the deceased, has fully supported the prosecution version and she has also remained consistent in the cross-examination. 11. It is evident from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that the dead body has been recovered from the confession made by the present appellant. The said confessional statement has been marked as Exhibit/7. 12. We have also gone through the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, no plea has been taken with respect to the fact that the female child, deceased was not living with this appellant. 13. Learned Trial Court, in view thereof, has come to the conclusive finding that the circumstances under which the female child had died, is required to be explained by the appellant since the female child was admittedly living along with the present appellant in his house, hence, has applied the provision as contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 14. We have also considered the testimony of the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.6, wherein, the cause of death was due to asphyxia which has also been supported by the testimony of P.W.5, the mother of the deceased. 15. 14. We have also considered the testimony of the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.6, wherein, the cause of death was due to asphyxia which has also been supported by the testimony of P.W.5, the mother of the deceased. 15. This Court, in view thereof, is of the view that the appellant has not been able to make out a prima-facie case for suspension of sentence. 16. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.839 of 2025 stands dismissed. 17. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.