JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the second application for suspension of sentence No.883/2021. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant-applicant vide impugned judgment. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death of deceased, any demand of dowry on the part of the appellant-applicant was made. It is also argued that statement of complainant Rampal (father of the deceased) could not be recorded before the trial court as he expired before commencement of the trial. It is further submitted that all the other prosecution witnesses, who are near relatives of the deceased, have specifically stated that the appellant-applicant never demanded dowry in front of them and had simply said that they are making this statement as the deceased had informed them about the same. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has further submitted that there is no evidence of this effect that on what date and time, the appellant-applicant has demanded dowry from his in-laws. Learned counsel has submitted that as per the statement of Dr. Padam Chand Jain (PW-4), the injuries on the body of the deceased could have been caused by hanging. It is further submitted that it is a plain and simple case of suicide as the deceased was suffering from mental illness. It is also submitted that the appellant-applicant is in custody from 02.11.2012, as such, he has served more than nine years of sentence and there is every likelihood that the appeal preferred by the appellant-applicant will not be heard in near future. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application for suspension of sentence preferred on behalf of the appellant-applicant. 4. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case; after scrutinizing the record of the trial court, particularly keeping in view the fact that in the evidence of the near relatives of the deceased, no specific allegation has been levelled regarding demand of dowry, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we consider it just and proper to suspend the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant-applicant. 5. 5. Accordingly, this second application for suspension of sentence No.883/2021 is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Tijara, District Alwar vide judgment dated 10.11.2017 in Sessions Case No.85/2015 against appellant-applicant - Dhanniram @ Dharamveer @ Dhanni S/o Ballu shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in this court on 11.11.2021 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 6. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-appellant in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-appellant was 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-appellant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.