3.In this case, P.Ws.1 to 3 are stated to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. It is their case that the accused 1 to 3 stabbed the deceased with knives. The occurrence had taken place at 9.45 p.m. on 31.12.2013. According to P.W.1, the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital and admitted there at 9.45 p.m. When the deceased and P.W.1 were in the hospital, it is stated that all the accused again came to the hospital and attacked them. It is further stated that at 11.30 p.m., a case was registered on the complaint made by P.W.1. However, it is seen from the records that the FIR had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate only at 7.30 p.m., on the next day and it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel that absolutely there is no explanation for the said inordinate delay. Further, at the earliest point of time, the deceased had told the Doctor that he was attacked by unknown persons, whereas, according to P.W.1, these accused were his College mates. There is no explanation as to why P.W.1 made such a statement. The deceased died 7 days, after the occurrence. P.W.1, during cross examination, has stated that for making complaint, he alone went to the police station. He has further admitted that at the time, when he made the complaint, he was not aware of the names, fathers' name and addresses and other details of the assailants. However, strangely, the names of all the six accused found place in the FIR. Thus, there are some anomalies, which, in our considered view, would make out a prima facie case for suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, we are inclined to suspend the sentence of imprisonment alone imposed on the petitioner pending appeal.
