ORDER 1. Heard on application for suspension of sentence of the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the prosecution has completely failed to bring home the guilt of the appellant by circumstantial evidence as none of the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution has been proved. As far as recovery of blood stained weapon is concerned, PW-2 father of the deceased has himself stated that the weapon was lying near the dead body. Therefore, recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant is an after-thought story of the prosecution. Though the wife of the appellant is said to have died in the house out of an injury, prosecution witnesses PW7 & PW8 had clearly stated that the appellant was attending a religious function in the house of PW-7 and at that time, these witnesses heard the cries and the appellant along with these witnesses rushed to his house where wife was lying in pool of blood and he lifted her and kept close on his lap. The evidence of PW-4 who is examined as eye witness is of no avail in view of that has come out in her cross examination. Evidence of PW-5 also does not prove extra judicial confession. Therefore, the conviction is not sustainable in law. The appellant has undergone more than five years of jail sentence. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that right from the beginning, when FIR was lodged by other person and not by the complainant, the appellant's name was involved. The prosecution case has some discrepancies, they are not material, there is evidence of the recovery of blood stained weapon and the most incriminating circumstance is that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant and the explanation said to be emerging from the evidence of PW7 and PW8, is not sufficient to dislodge the burden of the appellant as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, to explain how his wife sustained fatal injury resulting into homicidal death. 4. 4. Taking into consideration the submission with regard to the evidence of PW-2 the father of the deceased, the evidence of PW7 & 8 regarding presence of the appellant at the time of alleged incident and the evidence of PW-4 in her cross-examination, who did not support the prosecution case and there being no other circumstancial evidence, we are inclined to allow the application for suspension of sentence of the appellant. 5. Accordingly, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the substantive jail sentence awarded to the appellant Prakash Chand is suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, for his appearance before the concerned Trial Court on 21.12.2021 and on all such further dates as may be directed by the said Court, interval being not less than one year, during the pendency of the appeal.