JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application for suspension of sentence has been moved on behalf of two appellants namely Ram Gopal and Vidya Devi, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 304-B, IPC to imprisonment for life. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were on bail during trial of the case and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them, Appellant No. 1, Ram Gopal and Appellant No. 2, Vidya Devi, both are 75 years and 70 years of age respectively, which is clear from their memo of arrest itself. The incident took place on 26th June, 2007 at 10.00 a.m. and Parcha Bayan of the deceased, Usha Devi was recorded immediately by concerned S.H.O. at 11.30 a.m. in presence of a medical jurist, wherein she alleged the incident to be of accidental nature. However, subsequently, her statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. by Judicial Magistrate on 21st July, 2007, wherein she alleged that her husband was demanding dowry and at the time of incident, there was no one, except her husband. She also levelled allegation of demand of dowry against her mother-in-law, but that was in respect of two days earlier to the date of incident. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there was specific allegation about demand of dowry and other ingredients of offence under Section 304-B, IPC against husband, namely Sunil Kumar, who has also been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life, but he has not moved any application on his behalf, as he was in judicial custody during trial also and since the date of his arrest, he is in jail. It is also submitted that both appellants were not residing with deceased and accused Sunil Kumar since long. In this connection, he referred the statement of Investigating Officer, who admitted that these appellants were residing in other village with their other son. He, therefore, submitted that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be just and proper, in the interest of justice that their sentence of imprisonment may be suspended during pendency of the appeal. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant, both opposed the bail application. They referred dying declaration of the deceased as well as statement of deceased recorded by Judicial Magistrate, i.e. Exhibit P-19. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant, both opposed the bail application. They referred dying declaration of the deceased as well as statement of deceased recorded by Judicial Magistrate, i.e. Exhibit P-19. 5. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the age of the accused-appellants and the fact that they were on bail during trial, they were not living with deceased and her husband, main allegation of the offence is against husband of the deceased namely Sunil Kumar, who has not moved any application for suspension of sentence and other facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, we are of the view that this application deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. 6. It is directed that sentence of imprisonment of appellants namely (1) Ram Gopal S/o. Vishveshwar Lal, and (2) Vidya Devi W/o. Ram Gopal passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Head-Quarter Sri Madhopur view impugned judgment dated 23-2-2012 in Sessions Case No. 38/2007 shall remain suspended during pendency of the appeal and they shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands) with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before this Court on 21-12-2012 and as and when they are called upon to do so. Petition allowed.