ORDER : I.A. No.13483 of 2024 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS for suspension of sentence dated 16.02.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with Session Trial No.117 of 2022 arising out of Manoharpur P.S. Case No.31 of 2021 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for one year. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where there is no evidence said to be available to substantiate the prosecution version, save and except the recovery of the ‘sabbal’ on the confession of the appellant, a hard blunt substance which has sharp edge in its bottom. 3. It has been contended that although the said ‘sabbal’ has been recovered and as would be evident from the seizure list, the said ‘sabbal’ was having blood stain but when the ‘sabbal’ was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood traces were not found on the sabbal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that although Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been made applicable but merely on the ground of recovery of ‘sabbal’ which was not found to have any blood on it and hence, Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be said to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It has further been contended by referring to the testimony of PW-1, the wife of the deceased wherein the prosecution version which has subsequently been developed regarding having illicit relationship of the aunt of the deceased with the appellant has not been found mentioned in the First Information Report. 6. Further, the PW-1, wife of the deceased, has not disclosed about existence of such illicit relationship and hence, on that count also it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is a case where the sentence is fit to be suspended. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 8. Therefore, it is a case where the sentence is fit to be suspended. 7. While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 8. It has been contended that it is a case where Section 27 of the Evidence Act has rightly been made applicable reason being that on the disclosure made by the appellant, the ‘sabbal’ has been recovered by which the crime of murder has been committed and, as such, it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. 9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits available in the lower court record particularly the seizure list marked as Ext.-P-2/2 and the F.S.L. report marked as Ext.P-7 and Ext.-P-7/1. 10. This Court, has considered the testimony of PW-1, the wife of the deceased who has stated in her cross-examination at paragraph 6 that she has not named any person as accused in the First Information Report and further, at paragraph 11 she has stated that she had stated the name of the appellant as an accused before the police, therefore, question arises herein that why this witness has not taken the name of the appellant at the time of ferdbayan. 11. Further, the ground regarding illicit relationship of the appellant with aunt of the deceased as has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, nothing has been stated by the PW-1 either in the First Information Report or in her deposition before the learned trial court. 12. This Court has also considered the exhibits, particularly the seizure list, marked as Ext.-P-2/2 and the F.S.L. Report marked as P-7/1. From perusal of seizure list, Ext.-P-2/2 it is evident that at the time of seizure, the said ‘sabbal’ was having blood stain but the Forensic Science Laboratory did not find any traces of blood on the sabbal which is contradictory to each other. 13. From perusal of seizure list, Ext.-P-2/2 it is evident that at the time of seizure, the said ‘sabbal’ was having blood stain but the Forensic Science Laboratory did not find any traces of blood on the sabbal which is contradictory to each other. 13. This Court, in view of the testimonies of PW-1 and the Exhibits as also taken into consideration the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which has not found any traces of blood on the sabbal, which was said to be recovered on the on the confessional statement of the appellant is of the view that the appellant has been able to make out a prima facie case for suspension of sentence. 14. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No. 13483 of 2024 stands allowed. 15. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in connection with Session Trial No.117 of 2022 arising out of Manoharpur P.S. Case No.31 of 2021. 16. 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.