JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 1003 of 2025: 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of sentence dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C. (C.A.W.) Bermo at Tenughat in connection with G.R. Case No. 763 of 2021, arising out of Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 56/2021 whereby and whereunder, the appellant was convicted to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees) and further directed to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C with default stipulation. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the charge said to be committed by the appellant under Sections 302/34 and201/34 of the I.P.C. 3. It has been submitted by referring the testimony of P.W.6, who has been considered to be an eye-witness, which according to the appellant cannot be said to be an eye-witness. Since, there are several contradictions in his testimony. 4. Learned counsel based upon aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence. 5. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that it is a case where two accused have been convicted, one is Md. Adil Ansari and another is the present appellant. Md. Adil Ansari has filed Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 16 of 2024, wherein the prayer has also been made for suspension of sentence by filing I.A. No. 320 of 2024, but the prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected vide the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court on 08.05.2024 by taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.6, wherein the Co-Ordinate Bench has found that there is direct allegation against the appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No.16 of 2024 and the co-convict (present appellant). 6. Learned State counsel has submitted that the medical evidence also corroborates the aforesaid commission of crime, as such it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence, so far as the present appellant is concerned. 7. Appeal (DB) No.16 of 2024 and the co-convict (present appellant). 6. Learned State counsel has submitted that the medical evidence also corroborates the aforesaid commission of crime, as such it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence, so far as the present appellant is concerned. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records and the material exhibits appended therewith. 8. We have also considered the order passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 16 of 2024 with I.A. No. 320 of 2024 wherein, the prayer of suspension of sentence of the co-convict namely Md. Adil Ansari has been rejected on consideration of the testimony of P.W.6. 9. We have taken into consideration of the testimony of P.W.6 and found that P.W.6 has fully supported the prosecution version in capacity of an eye-witness. 10. We have also considered the testimony of doctor wherein, the commission of crime has been corroborated. 11. This Court, considering the aforesaid, is of the view that the instant interlocutory application deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A.No. 1003 of 2025 stands dismissed.