- (1.) THE applicant, convicted for the offences under Sections 302/34, 201 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, inter alia, for life imprisonment, has moved this third application seeking suspension of execution of the sentence during pendency of appeal. THE first application (No. 612/2008) of this nature was dismissed as not pressed on 29.04.2009. THE second application (No. 882/2010) of the same nature as moved by the petitioner was considered and rejected by this Court on 06.08.2010 with the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant appellant Smt. Meena. Her first bail application for suspension of sentence was dismissed as not pressed on 29.04.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the statements of various witnesses and pointed out that none of the witness has alleged anything against the appellant applicant and at the most she can be held guilty for destroying the evidence and that is also disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant appellant with the help of the evidence on record. Learned PP has vehemently opposed the bail application. We have perused the statements of relevant witnesses as well as recovery memo, Post Mortem Report, Site Plan and information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without commenting on the merit of the case, we are of the view that even if petitioner is a lady then also it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of applicant appellant Smt. Meena is dismissed."
(2.) THOUGH the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to persuade us with the submissions that on the evidence as adduced, no direct connectivity of the petitioner to the alleged crime is available and on the allegations as made and the role as assigned, in any case, the petitioner could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC but then, in the totality of the circumstances of the case, we find no reason to take a view different than the one that has already been taken by the co-ordinate Bench. Moreover, we do not find any change of circumstances so as to consider this repeat application seeking suspension of execution of the sentence. Therefore, this application is required to be and, is hereby, rejected. It is, however, noticed that by the order dated 20.08.2010, Hon'ble the Chief Justice granted the application made in the main appeal, i.e., D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 417/2008 for expedite hearing subject to the finalisation of the paper-book. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the paper-book has been submitted and has been compared by the office. Office shall take note of the order of expedite hearing of the main appeal and list the matter appropriately. With the observations foregoing, this third application on behalf of the applicant-appellant Smt. Meena seeking suspension of execution of the sentence stands rejected.;