ORDER : I.A.(Cr.) No. 1580 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with the order of sentence dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum- Special Judge, Gumla in Sessions Trial spt Case No. 51 of 2002 arising out of Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 89 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 364/34, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 2,000 for committing the offence under Section 364/34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine further undergo RI for one month. He has further been sentenced to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs. 25,000 for committing offence under Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine further undergo RI for two years each only. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it is a case where the appellant has falsely been implicated with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code even though there is no specific overt act said to be committed by the appellant. 3. It has been submitted that the reason for the false implication is that the present appellant is a witness in a criminal case wherein the father of one of the co-accused namely Anil Kumar has been killed in which the informant and other prosecution witness of the present case has been arraigned as an accused persons and due to the aforesaid reason, the present appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. 5. While, on the other hand, Ms. Snehlika Bhagat learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the prayer for suspension of sentence was also earlier moved by filing an interlocutory application being IA No. 5537 Of 2023 and the same was withdrawn as would be evident from the order dated 09.01.2024. 7. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the prayer for suspension of sentence was also earlier moved by filing an interlocutory application being IA No. 5537 Of 2023 and the same was withdrawn as would be evident from the order dated 09.01.2024. 7. It has further been contended that so far as the issue of merit and regarding the specific overt act is concerned by making submission that the appellant was present along with the other co-accused at the place of occurrence which would be evident from the testimony of the PW 1 and PW 5. 8. Learned counsel has further submitted by referring to the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein first time the plea of Alibi was taken by the applicant/appellant and even if for the sake of argument, it presumes to be correct then the specific question in this regard should have put before the eyewitnesses from the inception. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the basis of the aforesaid ground, has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the applicant taking the ground that there is no specific overt act said to be committed by the appellant. 10. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has further submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned court in the impugned order, the testimony of PW 1 and PW 5 available in the Trial Court Records and also the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Both the PW-1, PW-5 and P.W.2 informant who are the claimed to be eyewitness of the alleged occurrence have fully corroborated the prosecution version. We have also considered the testimony which has been recorded in the cross-examination of the PW 1 and PW 5 and found therefrom that they remained consistent in what they have deposed in their examination-in-chief. 13. The present applicant/appellant has not put any question and even not put a suggestion regarding his presence at the time of occurrence. We have also considered the testimony which has been recorded in the cross-examination of the PW 1 and PW 5 and found therefrom that they remained consistent in what they have deposed in their examination-in-chief. 13. The present applicant/appellant has not put any question and even not put a suggestion regarding his presence at the time of occurrence. However, while recording the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the plea of Alibi has been taken, but the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have not been found to be in consonance with the testimony of the witnesses particularly of PW 1 and PW 5, where no question has been asked regarding the plea of Alibi. 14. Further, the law is well-settled that merely by taking the plea of Alibi having not been supported by relevant and cogent evidences the plea of Alibi is not to be acceptable. 15. Moreover, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present appellant has been withdrawn earlier which would be evident from the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in IA No. 5537 Of 2023. 16. This Court, taking into consideration the specific testimony of PW 1 and PW 5 wherein the presence of the appellant has been shown at the place of occurrence and also considering the nature of crime in which two persons i.e. the wife and husband have been brutally killed and the poisonous substance has been poured in the eyes of both the deceased. is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 17. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1580 of 2025 is hereby, rejected. 18. 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.