5 Admittedly, the deceased and the petitioner/appellant are friends and the deceased said to have advanced a sum of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner/appellant and on the fateful day of occurrence, the deceased demanded the said sum and since it was not given, the deceased asked the petitioner/appellant to send his wife and enraged by the same, the petitioner/appellant took a decision to do away with the life of the deceased and accordingly, committed the murder at the early morning hours at about 3.30 a.m., on 28.07.2016. P.Ws.5 and 6 are related to the deceased and according to them, at or about the time, they saw the petitioner/appellant carrying the weapon and moving away and both of them would depose that they did not notice whether the weapon was tainted with blood stains or not? A perusal of paragraph NO.36 of the impugned judgment would also disclose that the Trial Court has placed reliance upon the full portion of the confession said to have been given by the petitioner/appellant and in the considered opinion of the Court, the same is against the settled position of law. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, except the alleged arrest, confession and recovery, nothing incriminating has been produced by the prosecution to connect the petitioner/appellant with the commission of the crime. This Court, is prima facie of the view that the petitioner/appellant is entitled for suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment pending this appeal.
