ORDER : 1. The applicants – life convict, who have been convicted for offences under Sections 148, 364 and 302/149 IPC by the judgment and order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, have preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has drawn our attention to the deposition of the eye-witnesses PW-5 Puna Ram, PW-6 Birdha Ram and PW-7 Jagdish. Learned counsel submitted that as per the deposition of the eye-witnesses, the injuries were caused by the accused persons by blunt weapons, i.e. hockey, lathi and iron road etc. Drawing the attention of this court to the postmortem report (Ex.P/21), learned counsel submitted that none of the injuries found on the person of the deceased were caused by blunt weapons inasmuch as none of injury is reported to be lacerated wound. Drawing the attention of this court to the deposition of PW-7 Dr. Manoj Garg, learned counsel submitted that the doctor has categorically deposed that none of the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused by blunt weapon. It is pertinent to note that as per the postmortem report, three grievous injuries were found on the person of the deceased, which are incised wounds, which obviously could have been caused by sharp-edged weapon. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence and the apparent contradictions clearly reflect that the eye-witnesses PW-5 Puna Ram, PW-6 Birdha Ram and PW-7 Jagdish, were planted witnesses and, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel submitted that no recovery was made at the instance of the applicants-accused and, therefore, in absence of cogent evidence, charges against the applicants cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submitted that during the trial, applicants were on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the complainant, has opposed the bail application. Mr. J.S. Choudhary contended that the finding of guilt against the applicants for the offences charged has been recorded by the learned trial Judge after examination of the evidence in entirety and objectivity. The conviction of the applicants is based on cogent evidence on record and, therefore, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Mr. J.S. Choudhary contended that the finding of guilt against the applicants for the offences charged has been recorded by the learned trial Judge after examination of the evidence in entirety and objectivity. The conviction of the applicants is based on cogent evidence on record and, therefore, they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, the fact that ocular evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. It is submitted that on account of absence of corroboration of ocular evidence with medical evidence, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be brushed aside. 4. Having considered the rival submission and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we consider it appropriate to suspend the substantive sentences awarded to the accused-applicants. Hence, this application for suspension of sentence preferred by the applicants Soda Ram @ Sodha Ram, Ugarsen and Manohar Ram @ Manohar Lal is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi vide his judgment dated 27.10.2017 in Sessions Case No.6/2014 (C.I.S. No.97/2014) against the applicants Soda Ram @ Sodha Ram S/o Faglu Ram, Ugarsen S/o Sodha Ram and Manohar Ram @ Manohar Lal S/o Faglu Ram shall remain suspended till the final disposal of the main appeal provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance in this court on 28.05.2018 and subsequently before the trial court on the following conditions:- 1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellants-applicants change the place of residence, they will give the changed address in writing to the trial court, High Court as well as to their counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly if sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial court. 4. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused-appellants were tried and convicted. 3. Similarly if sureties change their addresses, they will give in writing their changed addresses to the trial court. 4. The learned trial court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to the Sessions Case in which the accused-appellants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. File shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused do not appear before the trial court, the learned trial court Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.