JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has chosen not to file reply to this application for suspension of sentences and proposes to argue the matter orally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, learned Addl. Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Pressing the instant application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the applicant Hukmi Chand, learned counsel Shri Vineet Jain vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The prosecution came out with a case that the appellant was having strong disliking for his wife, deceased Smt Veena but the fact remains that after the marriage of the appellant with the deceased Smt. Veena, a child was born to both of them. The appellant nominated the deceased in his insurance policies. He further submits that the entire foundation of the prosecution case is based on assumption that the applicant-appellant strangulated the deceased by stethoscope whereas in the entire evidence of medical officer Dr. P.K. Saini (PW13), no endeavor was made by the prosecution to elicit an opinion that the death of Smt. Veena was homicidal i.e., by strangulation. He urged that the medical officer Dr. P.K. Saini, while deposing as PW.13, clearly opined that the cause of death of Smt. Veena was antemortem hanging. He further submits that the appellant was seen lying unconscious in the very same room where the deceased Smt. Veena ended her life by hanging. As per Shri Jain, in all probability, the accused panicked when he saw his wife in such a condition and appears to have taken the drastic step of ending his own life by consuming poison after failing to revive Smt. Veena despite all efforts. Learned counsel Shri Jain further submits that the applicant-appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him. On these submissions, Shri Jain craves acceptance of this application for suspension of sentences. 4. Per contra, learned AAG Shri Farzand Ali and learned Public Prosecutor Shri N.S. Bhati, opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel and contended that the appellant is a doctor by profession and even before his marriage with Veena, he wrote a letter (Ex.P/5) wherein he expressed his strong disliking for the girl. They thus, urged that the murder of Smt. Veena was a culmination of the appellant's forced marriage with her. 5. They thus, urged that the murder of Smt. Veena was a culmination of the appellant's forced marriage with her. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the record. 6. Even if it is assumed for a moment that the applicantappellant had a disliking for the deceased, Ms. Veena before the marriage, but the fact remains that after the marriage, a child was born from their wedlock. Various photographs exhibited by the defence reflect that the appellant was seen celebrating numerous occasions with his wife and child with a happy disposition. The prosecution came out with a specific charge that the appellant strangulated the deceased but the medical evidence as deposed by PW.13 Dr. P.K. Saini is in sheer contraction to this proposition. The incident took place on 17.06.2011. The brother of the deceased reached the place of occurrence on the same day and yet the FIR came to be lodged as late as on 30.06.2011. 7. In this view of the matter, we are of the firm opinion that the appellant herein has available to him strong grounds so as to assail the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases) Bikaner, vide judgment dated 06.08.2019 in Sessions Case No.52/2013 (CIS No.52/2013) against the appellant-applicant Hukmi Chand S/o Chela Ram shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 17.01.2020 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/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 applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.