ORDER : Per Virender Singh, C.J. 1. In all there are three appeals on hand viz Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 441 of 2015 filed by Mantu Bhandari @ Paresh Bhandari, Cr.Appeal (DB)No.446 of 2015 filed by Sarju Bhandari and his wife Chandni Devi @ Chando Devi and Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 456 of 2015 filed by Manoj Bhandari. All the four appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC for which they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, two years under Section 201 IPC and another two years under Section 498A IPC. All the sentences, however have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. It is stated at the Bar by learned counsel for appellants that except Manoj Bhandari- husband of deceased, remaining three co-accused (appellants herein) were on bail, during trial, and are now in custody after suffering conviction vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara dated 12th May, 2015. All the appellants are now praying for suspension of sentence. 3. At the very outset, counsel for appellants submitted that appellant-Manoj Bhandari by now has undergone five years of his substantive sentence out of sentence of ten years slapped upon him for the main charge of Section 304B IPC. On merits, learned counsel submitted that a grave irregularity has been committed by learned trial court which has caused prejudice to the appellants in this case. He submitted that initially charge against all the appellants was framed under Section 302 IPC but subsequently during trial, an application was moved by the State under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for amending the charge from 302 IPC to 304(B) IPC, which prayer was declined by the court and that the State did not assail the said order till the culmination of trial. Learned counsel submitted that despite there being no charge framed against the appellants for offence punishable under Section 304(B) IPC, they have been convicted for the said charge whereas no finding has been returned vis-a-vis charge of 302 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that this has caused prejudice to the appellants, inasmuch as they were not put to any notice or granted an opportunity to disprove the prosecution, which is available to the prosecution under Section 113(B) of the Indian evidence Act and that the complete trial faced by appellants was for the charge of 302 IPC. 4. Learned counsel submitted that this has caused prejudice to the appellants, inasmuch as they were not put to any notice or granted an opportunity to disprove the prosecution, which is available to the prosecution under Section 113(B) of the Indian evidence Act and that the complete trial faced by appellants was for the charge of 302 IPC. 4. Learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka reported in ( 2002) 2 SCC 577, wherein also almost on the same set of facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court while setting aside the conviction of the accused under Section 304(B) IPC had remanded the case back to the trial court from the stage of defence evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the said view still holds field. 5. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submitted that keeping in view the aforesaid gross irregularity committed by the trial court, coupled with the fact that three of the appellants were on bail during trial and the fact that appellant-Manoj Bhandari, husband of deceased, has also undergone half of the substantive sentence out of ten years slapped upon him, all the four appellants deserve concession of suspension of sentence during pendency of instant appeal. 6. Prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the State. 7. Keeping in view totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon merits of the case, including the irregularity projected by learned counsel during the trial, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, all the four appellants deserve concession of suspension of sentence, during pendency of appeals on hand. Prayer for the said relief is thus allowed. 8. Let appellants (1. Mantu Bhandari @ Paresh Bhandari, 2.Sarju Bhandari, 3. Chandni Devi @ Chando Devi and 4. Manoj Bhandari ) be released on bail, during pendency of appeal, on their furnishing individual bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court (learned Additional Sessions Judge- 1st, Jamtara) in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2012.