JUDGMENT 1. Learned State counsel has filed an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by the applicant/appellant- Rajender son of Sohan Lal. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The criminal miscellaneous application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant- Rajender during the pendency of the appeal. 4. The applicant/appellant on the intervening night of 7/8.11.2006 is alleged to have murdered his wife. On 8.11.2006 at about 1.00 p.m. Narender Singh the then Station House Officer, Police Station Dharuhera received a telephone message that a dead body of an unidentified woman was lying in the ditches alongwith the road in village Masani. On receiving the information, Narender Singh SHO alongwith ASI Om Parkash, HC Dharambir and Constable Raj Kumar visited the site in a Govt. Gypsy which was driven by Constable Jitender. At the spot, Narender Singh met Vijay Pal Sarpanch of village Khaliawas Titarpur who got his statement recorded to the effect that today i.e. on 8.11.2006 in the morning he came to know that an unidentified woman was killed by sliting her throat and her dead body was dumped in the ditches beside the road near the cremation ground and old Water Works of village Masani. Vijay Pal stated that after receiving the said information, he alongwith Bhajan Lal, Ex-Sarpanch of the village visited the site where several other passers by were already standing on the road. Vijay Pal and Bhajan Lal also saw the dead body of that unidentified lady having a deep injury around her neck and a blood stained knife was also lying near her body. During investigation, the dead body was identified to be that of Gyatri Devi. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant was arrested on 11.11.2006. On his arrest he had made a disclosure statement before Inspector Jagdish Kumar in the presence of Dharambir and ASI Bijender Singh to the effect that he has killed his wife on 7.11.2006 by giving a cut on her throat as he was having a doubt about her character and after killing her he had thrown away her dead body in the ditches along with the knife and he can get that place demarcated. 5. 5. According to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the knife had already been recovered and the place where the dead body thrown was known to the police. Therefore, the alleged disclosure statement was inadmissible in evidence. It is submitted that the case is of no evidence. 6. According to learned counsel for the State, the applicant/appellant committed murder of his own wife and the case is one of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter, the case is one of circumstantial evidence and it is to be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal as to whether the guilt of the applicant/ appellant - Rajender is established. The question whether the disclosure statement of applicant/appellant – Rajender is admissible in evidence so as to convict him would also require consideration. 8. In terms of the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon, the applicant/appellant has undergone imprisonment of five years, one months and five days as on 20.12.2011 which includes three years, one month and one day post conviction. Therefore, the case of the applicant/appellant is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dharam Pal versus State of Haryana, 1999(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 600. It has been held therein that life convicts who have undergone five years imprisonment of which three years should be after conviction should be released on bail pending hearing of their appeals. The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant during the pendency of the appeal is suspended. 9. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application is allowed and the sentence of imprisonment of the applicant/appellant during the pendency of the appeal shall remain suspended subject to his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. -------------