ORDER : S.MANIKUMAR, J. The Petitioner/appellant has filed the present petition, under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., seeking suspension of sentence, imposed on him, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.64/2014, dated 16.04.2015. 2. The petitioner/appellant is the sole accused. After he has been convicted for the offence, under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner/appellant has preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.412 of 2017 and filed C.M.P.No.8873 of 2017, seeking suspension of sentence, pending appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, Thangamani, residing in Vadakipalayam area at Kullichettypalayam, had given in marriage, her daughter, Bakyam, to the petitioner/appellant, 3 years ago and after the marriage, both were living in Moongilmadai. Further, whenever PW.1 and her younger daughter, went to see her daughter, the petitioner/appellant tortured her daughter. Hence, PW.1, has brought and maintaining her. Even after that there was a problem between them. 5. While so, on 19.09.2003, about 4.0 clock in the evening, when PW.1, was talking with her sister, Mrs.Thirumal and neighbour, Mr.Rajan, the petitioner/appellant was shouting at Bakiyam, daughter of PW.1 and when they went inside the house, the petitioner/appellant was holding the child, in his right hand and strangulating Bakiyam, with his left hand. When the abovesaid three persons shouted, the petitioner/appellant dropped the child and ran away. Her daughter fell down and died. Immediately, they informed the Village Administrative Officer, PW.6 and on his advice, preferred a complaint before the respondent-Police. 6. The petitioner/appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC., in S.C.No.64 of 2011, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore. Learned Sessions Judge, has convicted the petitioner/appellant, for the offence, under Section 302 of IPC, without giving benefit of doubt to him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, has convicted the petitioner/appellant, for the offence, under Section 302 of IPC, without giving benefit of doubt to him and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. 7. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was strangulated by the petitioner/appellant, PW.4, Forensic Surgeon, has deposed that the injuries found on the neck of the deceased, could have been caused due to strangulation, by inviting the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW.1, on the aspect of witnessing strangulation, Mr.T.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that when PW.1, in her cross-examination, has stated that she has not witnessed the deceased, protesting strangulation, case of the prosecution that PW.1, had witnessed the petitioner/appellant, strangulating the deceased, falls ground. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider that two months prior to the alleged occurrence, PW.1, mother of the deceased attempted to commit suicide. It is her further case that the injuries found on the neck, could be due to the deceased, attempting suicide. He therefore submitted that the petitioner/appellant has some arguable points and that since he was in jail, from the date of conviction, he has sought for bail. 9. Per contra, Mr.J.Karuppiah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that PW.1, has categorically stated that she had witnessed the petitioner/appellant, strangulating the deceased. According to him, after hearing the alarm, PW.1, mother of the deceased, went inside the house and at that time, the petitioner/appellant, while holding his son, in the right hand, was strangulating the deceased, with his left hand. When PW.1 shouted, the petitioner/appellant ran away. He further submitted that PW.4, Doctor, has corroborated the injuries to the act of the appellant and other witnesses have also supported prosecution. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner/appellant has not made a case for bail. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Among eight witnesses, PW.1's sister and neighbour, Mr.Rajan, have not adduced evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.09.2013, about 4.00 P.M., there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, wife of the appellant. PW.1, was talking to her sister, and neighbour, Rajan, near her sister's house. 10. Among eight witnesses, PW.1's sister and neighbour, Mr.Rajan, have not adduced evidence. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.09.2013, about 4.00 P.M., there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, wife of the appellant. PW.1, was talking to her sister, and neighbour, Rajan, near her sister's house. According to PW.1, at that time, the appellant was shouting at the deceased and after hearing her alarm, PW.1, Thangamani, her Sister, Mrs.Thirumal and neighbour, Mr.Rajan, went inside the house, where the deceased was standing, at the entrance. The appellant, while holding his son in right hand, was strangulating the deceased with his left hand. On seeing the same, all the three shouted at the petitioner/appellant and he ran away. 11. Though apart from PW.1, Thangamani, other two persons, Mrs.Thirumal, sister of the deceased and Mr.Rajan, neighbour, have alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, as per Ex.P1 - FIR, they were not examined by the prosecution. PW.1, mother of the deceased, in her cross-examination, has stated as hereunder: ANY OTHER LANGUAGE 12. PW.1, mother of the deceased, has deposed that hands of the deceased were not tied. On the suggestion, as to whether, the deceased had resisted strangulation, she has deposed that she has not seen the same. The fact that PW.1, mother of the deceased, has attempted to commit suicide, two months prior to the death of her daughter, has not been disputed. Defence of the appellant is that the deceased committed suicide, due to the alleged relationship between PW.1, mother of the deceased and brother-in-law of PW.2, Vinothkumar. 13. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW.4, Doctor, supports the case of the prosecution. In the case on hand, though as per Ex.P1 - FIR, apart from PW.1, mother of the deceased, her sister, Mrs.Thirumal and neighbour, Mr.Rajan, were stated to have witnessed the occurrence, they were not examined by the prosecution. PW.4, Doctor, has also stated that if somebody has strangulated the victim, he/she can oppose the same. 14. Thrust of prosecution rests on the testimony of PW.1, mother of the deceased, stated to have witnessed the incident. Though her evidence is to the effect that she has not seen the deceased, resisting strangulation, the question to be considered, is whether, she has witnessed the incident at all. The appellant is in jail, from 16.04.2015, the date on which, he was convicted. Though her evidence is to the effect that she has not seen the deceased, resisting strangulation, the question to be considered, is whether, she has witnessed the incident at all. The appellant is in jail, from 16.04.2015, the date on which, he was convicted. 15. From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner/appellant and in view of the various grounds raised in the memorandum of criminal appeal, this Court finds that there are substantial and arguable points in the present case. Further, it is also seen that if certain stringent conditions are imposed, there is no chance for the accused to abscond. Further, after hearing the main appeal alone, the correct and proper finding in the main case can be given. 16. Further, it is seen that various points raised in the grounds of appeal require an indepth/threadbare examination at the time of final hearing of the main appeal and also on going through the various grounds raised in the memorandum of criminal appeal, at this stage, this Court, to prevent aberration of justice, suspends the substantial sentence of imprisonment alone pending disposal of the above criminal appeal with the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner/appellant shall be released on bail, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore; (ii) the petitioner/appellant shall appear before the said Court daily on all working days, at 10.30 a.m. until further orders, failing which the said Court is directed to inform about the details of failure committed by the petitioners in complying with the said conditions, to the Registry of this Court forthwith; (iii) the petitioner/appellant shall furnish their present full details of their residential address and also phone numbers (mobile/land line) if any to the said Court in the form of an affidavit, after serving an advance true copy of the same to the respondent police; and (iv) on receipt of the true copy of the said affidavit, the respondent police is directed to verify the veracity of the particulars given in the said affidavit and also liberty is granted to respondent to take appropriate follow up action, in accordance with law.