ORDER : ILESH J. VORA, J. 1. This application has been filed with a prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant Dharmendra @ Raju Chetti Kaniyalal Modi. The applicant has been convicted vide order dated 24.05.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.166 of 2015 with Sessions Case No.49 of 2016 by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Court, Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with the fine. He has challenged his conviction by filing appeal being Criminal Appeal No.1364 of 2019 and pending the appeal, this successive application has been preferred mainly on the ground of long incarceration and questioning the credibility of the witness PW.18 – Dipakbhai. 2. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Pratik Barot assisted by learned counsel Mr. Dhruvin Bhuptani for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 17.07.2014 at about 8:00 p.m., deceased Ankur was fatally assaulted by 4 persons namely Rakesh Thakor, Bhavinsinh Thakur, Dharmendra @ Raju Chetti (applicant herein), Pankaj Besane, Samir Barot and Tejas Barot by deadly weapons like swords and baseball bat, and the brother of the deceased Ankush was injured in the incident alleged to have been caused by accused Rakesh. The deceased was taken to the hospital and succumbed to the injuries. The injured Ankush – brother of the deceased lodged an FIR and initially, after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused no.1 to 4 and later on, it was filed against the accused no.5 and 6 for the offences as mentioned hereinabove. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 73 documents. The plea of the accused that they were falsely implicated. After hearing the parties, the trial court convicted and sentenced the present applicant – original accused no.3 and directed him to suffer life imprisonment and by giving benefit of doubt, acquitted the other accused. 4. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel for the applicant assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, submitted that, the trial court relying on the testimony of PW.18, convicted the applicant-accused. 4. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel for the applicant assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, submitted that, the trial court relying on the testimony of PW.18, convicted the applicant-accused. PW.18 – Dipakbhai has been declared hostile as on the issue of weapon, he did not support to the case of prosecution because he has categorically stated on oath that the applicant had assaulted the deceased with the iron pipe, whereas, case of the prosecution is that, the applicant- accused armed with sword, gave a fatal blow on the body of the deceased. The PW.18 in his 164 statement also, did not disclose that, the applicant had assaulted the deceased with sword. That, the trial court has disbelieved two eye witnesses namely PW.15 – Kashmira Patel and PW.16 – Umang Rathod. So far as testimony of injured witness – the brother of the deceased PW.14 – Ankush Pandey is concerned, he did not disclose the names of eye witness PW.15 and 16 about his presence at the place and trial court has not believed the testimony of PW.14 injured witness. That, the trial court relying upon the testimony of hostile witness – PW.18 Dipakbhai, arrived at a conclusion that, the prosecution able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present applicant – accused no.3. In such circumstances, it is submitted that, the evidence of eye witnesses is totally inconsistent about the place of incident and role attributed to the present applicant and tried to involve as many as five persons which clearly establish the fallecity of the prosecution case. That, the trial court does not believe the evidence of PW.14 the injured witness that the accused Rakesh was the author of causing injury to the witness. In such circumstances, the direct evidence as led before the prosecution is not trustworthy, cogent and reliable. So far as place of incident is concerned, there are different versions on this aspect and where the incident occurred, that has not been proved. That, there is no blood stain found on the weapons or clothes of the accused. 5. In such circumstances, as referred above, Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel has submitted that, there are fair chances of succeeding in appeal. The applicant has undergone 10 years and 1 month of his jail term and till date, there is no chance of appeal likely to be heard promptly. 5. In such circumstances, as referred above, Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel has submitted that, there are fair chances of succeeding in appeal. The applicant has undergone 10 years and 1 month of his jail term and till date, there is no chance of appeal likely to be heard promptly. Thus, therefore, the case for bail and suspension of sentence may be considered. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Aditya Jadeja, learned APP vehemently opposed the application and contended that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the applicant for the offence of murder and while convicting him, the trial court has relied on the evidence of injured witness PW.14 also. So it is not true that, solely on the testimony of PW.18 – Dipakbhai, the trial court convicted the applicant. In such circumstances, it is submitted that, the issue as raised herein, cannot be appreciated at this stage, as it will be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal and having regard to the custody period, he urged that, let appeal be notified for final hearing. In such circumstances, it is prayed that, there is no merits in the application and the same may be dismissed. 7. Before adverting to the submissions, it is necessary to examine the legal position settled by Supreme Court in its various judgments, with respect to the prayer of suspension of sentence and grant of bail. When the person is convicted in a serious offence, the consideration for suspension of sentence cannot consider in a casual manner and in that case, in considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court has to examine, whether there is patent infirmity in the judgment of conviction, that renders the judgment prima-facie erroneous and court is duty bound to assess the matter and to record the reasons for the conclusion that case warrants suspension of sentence. Once the accused stood convicted for a very serious offence, the presumption of innocence would no longer exists and Appellate Court is expected to be very slow in granting bail and at that time, the court cannot appreciate the evidence while considering the plea of suspension and normal practice is not suspend the sentence and it is only in exceptional cases, that the benefit of suspension of sentence be granted. In the case of Ash Mohd. Vs. In the case of Ash Mohd. Vs. Shivrajsingh (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Supreme Court in para-30, has observed that, “the period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedes are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective crime and desire. The societal concerned has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being head to the said parameter, we are inclined to think that, the societal concerned in the case in hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the liberty of the accused. We may also take a note of observations made by the Supreme Court in case of Siddharsh Vashisht @ Many Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 5 SCC 230 (popularly known as Jessica Lal murder case) . In the said case, while dealing with the prayer of bail after conviction, in para-19 and 30, the Supreme Court has held that, the observations on merits, one way or other are likely to prejudice one or the other party to the appeal. We are hence not entering into correctness or otherwise of the record. It, however, cannot be overlooked that, as on today the applicant has been found guilty and convicted by a competent court and therefore initial presence of innocence in favour of the accused is no more available in favour of the applicant. While referring the observations made in the case of Vijay Kumar (2002) 9 SCC 364 , the Supreme Court, observed that, in considering the prayer of bail in case of involving in the serious offence, the court should consider all the relevant factors like nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the desirability of accused to release on bail, after he has been convicted for committing serious offence and normal practice in such cases, is not to suspend the sentence and it is only the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shahani Vs. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Shahani Vs. Jay Shanker Chaudhary (2023) 6 SCC 123 , after referring the aforesaid decisions, while dealing with the case of suspension of sentence and grant of bail in a serious offence, in para-33 has observed that while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has a fair chance of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which the court can arrive at a prima-facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Supreme Court further cautioned that, the appellate Court should not re-appreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C and try to pick-up few lacuna or loopholes here or there in the case of prosecution. 8. In the background of above factual and legal position, we may examine whether case is made out for suspension of sentence pending the appeal or not. 9. In the facts of the present case, according to case of prosecution, the applicant – original accused no.3 gave sword blows on the body of the deceased. The brother of the deceased – PW.14 – Ankush Pandey was present at the place and he received the injuries which have been proved by examining the treating doctor. The medical evidence so far deceased is concerned, is consistent with the oral evidence. The learned trial court mainly relied on the testimony of PW.14 and 18 – Dipakbhai. So far as Dipak is concerned, his version was that, the applicant-accused assaulted the deceased with pipe and not the sword. The witness has not denied the presence of the applicant- accused at the spot and the facts of causing injury on the deceased. 10. We have carefully examined the findings recorded by the trial court and prima-facie, it appears that the trial court relying on the testimony of PW.14 and 18 together with the medical evidence, found guilty the applicant herein. In arriving at the said findings, the trial court has assigned convincing and cogent reasons. 10. We have carefully examined the findings recorded by the trial court and prima-facie, it appears that the trial court relying on the testimony of PW.14 and 18 together with the medical evidence, found guilty the applicant herein. In arriving at the said findings, the trial court has assigned convincing and cogent reasons. Thus, therefore, after careful perusal of the records and findings of the trial court, we do not find any palpable wrong in the judgment and at this stage, the contentions raised hereinabove about the change of scene of occurrence and reliability of the witnesses cannot be analyzed, reappreciated at this stage and take a different view as same is not permissible in law and therefore, we cannot at this stage, come to a conclusion that conviction against the applicant is not sustainable in law. Thus, in absence of any strong and compelling reasons, having regard to the gravity of the offence, we are not inclined to consider the prayer seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However, considering the custody period, the Registry is directed to list the appeal for final hearing in the 1st week of August, 2025. 11. Accordingly, the application fails and it is hereby dismissed. Notice discharged. The observations made herein above are tentative and prima-facie in nature and confined to adjudication of present application and it shall not come into way at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. Direct service is permitted.