- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also learned Counsel for complainant on the applications for suspension of sentence.
(2.) IT appears that earlier the application for suspension of sentence was accepted by this Court and on filing SLP, the order passed in favour of the accused suspending the sentence was set aside with the observation that speaking order was required to be passed. It has been the contention of the learned Counsel that in the instant case so far as the accused -applicants namely; Rameshwar & Roshanlal are concerned, no overt -act has been assigned in relation to causing any injury on the person of deceased. Therefore, as far as above accused -applicants are concerned, their matters require consideration for suspension of sentence.
(3.) IT has also been contended that the accused -applicants were on bail during the course of trial. In relation to other accused -applicants namely; Rajendra Singh @ Deena & Prakash, it is submitted that in post -mortem report except injury on the head, there were abrasions and two lacerated wounds, therefore, in the First Information Report lodged by PW -5, no specific overt -act was assigned to Rajendra and Prakash. Therefore, their matters also require consideration.;