ORDER : 1. These applications seeking suspension of sentence have been filed by applicants, namely, Kalyan Singh, Gajendra Singh, Ishwar Singh S/o Bheru Singh and Ranjeet Singh in relation to judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District Dungarpur dated 12.05.2023 passed in Session Case No.36/2018 (Old No.33/2016 & 25/2016), whereby the applicants have been convicted for offences under Sections 147, 323/149, 458, 364, 302/149, 120-B and 201/149 of IPC and sentenced as infra: Offences Sentence Fine 147 IPC Two Years’ rigorous imprisonment Rs.5000/- with default stipulation to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment. 323/149 IPC One Year’s rigorous imprisonment Rs.1000/- with default stipulation to further undergo fifteen days’ additional simple imprisonment. 458 IPC Fourteen Years’ rigorous imprisonment Rs.5000/- with default stipulation to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment. 364 IPC Imprisonment for Life Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment. 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for Life Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment. 120B IPC Imprisonment for Life Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation to further undergo six months’ additional simple imprisonment. 201/149 IPC Seven Years’ rigorous imprisonment Rs.5000/- with default stipulation to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants made submissions that the trial court committed grave error in convicting the applicants for the offences alleged. It was emphasized that Challan was filed against as many as 26 accused, out of which 5 including applicants have been convicted and rest of them have been acquitted. It was further submitted that initially Challan was filed against 15 persons and investigation was kept pending against rest of the accused under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Whereafter, after three years, second Challan was filed against 3 persons and more than one and half year, after filing of second Challan, third Challan was filed against 8 persons. It was submitted that while against Kalyan Singh and Gajendra Singh, Challan was filed in the first instance against Ranjeet Singh and Ishwar Singh, the same was filed after four and half years of the incident, which it is alleged, was committed on 04.03.2016. 3. It was emphasized that when written report dated 05.03.2016 (Ex.P/1) was filed by the mother-in-law of the deceased, the allegations were made against Laxman Singh, Praveen Singh and 30-35 other persons from their family, whereby Praveen Singh and Laxman Singh etc. 3. It was emphasized that when written report dated 05.03.2016 (Ex.P/1) was filed by the mother-in-law of the deceased, the allegations were made against Laxman Singh, Praveen Singh and 30-35 other persons from their family, whereby Praveen Singh and Laxman Singh etc. took away the deceased and after pouring kerosene over her, she was burnt to death. 4. In the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/ 1), said Smt. Kalawati (PW.1), mother-in-law of the deceased, gave out names of as many as 30 persons and alleged that Praveen Singh and Laxman Singh took out the deceased from the home, she was taken in front of Laxmi Narayan temple, wherein Laxman Singh and Praveen Singh, poured kerosene on her. Laxman Singh lit the matchstick and burnt her daughter-in-law to death. 5. The said mother-in-law of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and her statements were recorded on three different occasions, i.e. as and when the supplementary charge sheets were filed. In her statements as PW.1, she, for the first time, specifically roped in Ishwar Singh, Kalyan Singh, Gajendra Singh and several others and made allegations regarding their involvement in the incident. She made specific allegations that kerosene was poured by Moti Kanwar, Preven Singh and Pratap Kanwar. For several accused, she indicated that they were not involved. She also indicated that those involved in the incident, were 60-70 years old persons, who are not accused in the case. She didn’t inform the names of those, who were actually involved in the incident, because she was frightened. 6. PW.2-Smt. Bhawana, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased, also made specific allegations against Pratap Kanwar, Moti Kanwar and Praveen Singh etc. She also alleged that kerosene was inter-alia poured by Moti Kanwar along with Praveen Singh and Gautam Singh. First matchstick was lit by Praveen Singh, another matchstick was lit by Moti Kanwar and Pratap Kanwar also put matchstick. 7. It was emphasized that insofar as the allegations regarding pouring of the kerosene and lighting the matchstick, which resulted in the deceased being burnt death are concerned, the same were confined initially to Laxman Singh and Praveen Singh, and whereafter Moti Kanwar, Pratap Kanwar and Gautam Singh were involved qua the said acts, there are no allegations qua the said acts against the applicants. 8. It is submitted that most of other material witness turned hostile. 8. It is submitted that most of other material witness turned hostile. It is submitted that despite the above status of evidence qua the incident, the trial court has acquitted Laxman Singh, Pratap Kanwar, Moti Kanwar, Gautam Singh of the charges and have held the applicants guilty of the alleged offences wherein, there is no evidence available against them. 9. Submissions have been made that when despite specific allegations against Laxman Singh, Moti Kanwar, Pratap Kanwar and Gautam Singh, they have been acquitted, based on the statements of same witnesses, the applicants couldn’t have been convicted. Submissions have been made that during the trial, all the applicants were on bail and hearing of the appeal would take substantially long time and, therefore, the substantive sentence passed against the applicants be suspended. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made. It was submitted that submissions made may be relevant while arguing the appeal, however, insofar as suspension of sentence qua the applicants is concerned, the applicants are not entitled for any indulgence looking to the nature of the offence, which is essentially a purported honour killing of a young lady, who had married in different caste. However, it was not denied that all the applicants were on bail during trial. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 12. The contradictions, as pointed out by the counsel for the applicants in the written report (Ex.P/1), statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1) and thereafter the statements of PW.1 and PW.2 are glaring, stark and vacillating in nature, inasmuch as while specific names of Laxman Singh and Praveen Singh were mentioned on 05.03.2016 i.e. the next date of the incident; in the statements recorded before the court below qua Laxman Singh, statements were given that his name was taken under pressure and new names were introduced and qua several of the accused, against whom Challan was filed, it was stated that they were not involved. Specific allegations were made against Moti Kanwar, Pratap Kanwar and Gautam Singh with regard to their active participation in pouring kerosene over the deceased and lighting up the matchsticks, which resulted in burning of the deceased to death. Specific allegations were made against Moti Kanwar, Pratap Kanwar and Gautam Singh with regard to their active participation in pouring kerosene over the deceased and lighting up the matchsticks, which resulted in burning of the deceased to death. The trial court while analyzing the evidence qua Moti Kanwar, Pratap Kanwar and Gautam Singh by finding the variation in the statements of the said witnesses in relation to written report and the fact that their names were not indicated earlier, gave benefit of doubt, however, apparently the same treatment was not extended to the applicants, whose names were also not included in the written report. Even Laxman Singh, who was specifically named in the written report (Ex.P/1) and in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1), was also acquitted by giving benefit of doubt based on vacillating statements of PW.1 and the statements of PW.2. 13. In view of status of the evidence qua the applicants, the analysis made by the trial court while holding them guilty of the offences alleged, in contrast to the analysis made qua those, who have been acquitted, the fact that the Challan was filed against two applicants, Ranjeet Singh and Ishwar Singh, after four and half years of the incident, that also in a case where only the investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (89) Cr.P.C. and it was not a case of accused absconding and the fact that all the applicants were on bail during trial, without going into the merits of the case, we are inclined to suspend the substantive sentence of the applicants, namely, (1) Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Gautam Singh, (2) Gajendra Singh @ Gajraj Singh S/o Shri Kishore Singh, (3) Ishwar Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh and (4) Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh. Gautam, during the pendency of the appeal. 14. Accordingly, this applications for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagwada, District Dungarpur vide judgment dated 12.05.2023 in Session Case No.36/2018 (Old No.33/2016 & 25/2016) against appellants-applicants (1) Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Gautam Singh, (2) Gajendra Singh @ Gajraj Singh S/o Shri Kishore Singh, (3) Ishwar Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh and (4) Ranjeet Singh S/o Sh. Gautam shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal, provided they execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this Court on 09.11.2023 and whenever ordered to do so, till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the appellants change the place of residence(s), they will give in writing 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, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 15. 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 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 appellants do not appear before the trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.