JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 269 of 2025: 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in S.T. No. 384 of 1993 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.49 of 1991, G.R. No.551 of 1991whereby and whereunder, the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for one month under Section 341 of the I.P.C. and further R.I. of one year under Section 323 of the I.P.C and imprisonment for life under both Sections 364 and 302 of the I.P.C. and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine has been directed to undergo SI for three months. 2. It has been contended on behalf of appellant that prayer for suspension of sentence has been made in earlier interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3940 of 2024 but it was not pressed as would evident from the order dated 07.05.2024. The present interlocutory application being I.A. No. 269 of 2025 has been filed for the consideration of suspension of sentence on the basis of custody, since, the appellant has already remained in custody for more than a period of six years. It has been contended that on merit that the case is of the year 1991 and the basis of conviction is the testimony of P.W.7, who has been considered to be an eye-witness and whose statement has been recorded on 17 th February, 2020 after a lapse of about 29 years. 3. It has been contended thereby the testimony of P.W.7 appears to be in complete contradiction to that of the prosecution version as was recorded on the basis of the statement of P.W.7 wherein the ground for scuffle with the appellant has been said to be the issue of rifle, but in the testimony, the reason for commission of crime of murder has been said to be the issue of fishing. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the version of P.W.7 is the sole basis of conviction, therefore, is not fully reliable. Hence, it is a case where the sentence may be suspended. 4. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the version of P.W.7 is the sole basis of conviction, therefore, is not fully reliable. Hence, it is a case where the sentence may be suspended. 4. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that the fact about the reason for the scuffle is of the issue of rifle which has been stated in the First Information Report and that has also come in the testimony of P.W.7 and in addition thereto, issue of fishing has also been deposed by P.W.7. It has been submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also reiterated the reason for death of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the basis of aforesaid ground has submitted that it is not a fit case where the sentence is to be suspended. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records. The appellant has already remained in custody for more than six years. The version in the F.I.R. appears to be in contradiction as per the testimony of P.W.7, who has been considered to be an eye-witness. 6. This Court, considering the age of the present appellant on the date of judgment was recorded to the age of 63 years, is of the view that the sentence is to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed. 8. In view thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra in S.T. No. 384 of 1993 arising out of Hunterganj P.S. Case No.49 of 1991, G.R. No.551 of 1991. 9. 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.