JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 1205 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the sentence in abeyance in connection with order of sentence dated 29 th February, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Chatra (Jharkhand) in Sessions Trial Case No. 90 of 2020 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 156 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 37 of 2019, whereby and whereunder, the appellant have been convicted and sentenced with Rigorous Imprisonment for life for the offence Under Section 302 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and also sentenced to under Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserable failed with all reasonable doubt reason being that there is wide contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses. 3. It has further been contended that even there is no eye witness to the commission of the offence but rather the prosecution story is based upon the theory of last seen, therefore, it is a fit case for the suspension of sentence while the appeal is pending. 4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, testimony available in the Lower Court Records and the other material exhibits particularly the FSL Report. 6. We, on consideration of the testimony of PW 2 and PW 3 who has deposed that the victim is being carried by the appellant. 7. The fact about the factum of commission of rape is also being proved by the DNA profile test which has been marked as Exhibit 3 wherein the sample of the semen that has been found in the petticoat of the victim is found to be of the present appellant. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 9. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 9. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1205 of 2025 is hereby, rejected.