1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State on the prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of the appellant through I.A. No. 3008 of 2022.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 16.09.2016 and therefore, he has spent about 75% of the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. He has further stated that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and the conviction is only based on circumstantial evidence. He has further argued that the appellant has been convicted in this case only on the basis of suspicion and previous grudge between the appellant and the family of the Informant. Learned counsel therefore prays that considering the period of custody spent by the appellant till date, he may be allowed the privilege of suspension of sentence.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the act committed by the appellant against four years old child is an heinous offence and he does not deserve the privilege of suspension of sentence.
4. Considering the gravity of the offence and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to grant privilege of suspension of sentence to this appellant. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
5. I.A. No. 3008 of 2022 stands disposed of.
