ORDER 1. Accused-appellant has preferred this application for suspension of sentence. 2. Heard on application for suspension of sentence. 3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that there is delay of 2 days in lodging of FIR. The cremation was done in the presence of the complainant. It is also contended that there were no mark of injuries on the person of the deceased. All her body parts were normal and healthy. It is further contended that no cause of death was mentioned in the post-mortem report, however, in the FSL report, presence of organo phosphorus was found. It is also contended that the samples which were drawn were not deposited with the Malkhana on the same day. It is further contended that place where the post-mortem was done i.e. at Sabzi Faros Graveyard is also different from the place where the body was recovered i.e. from Hadi Shah Graveyard. 4. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Rajbir Singh vs The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No.2152/2010 decided by Apex Court on 24.08.2022. In support of his contention that when the parts of the body are healthy, the chances of consuming organo phosphorus is doubtful, as organo phosphorus first has a strong burning smell and it also affects the parts of the body. It is contended that PW.6-Dr. Neelam Singh has also stated that there were no mark of injuries on the person of the deceased and also there were no ligature marks and all her body parts were healthy. It is also contended that death did not occur in unnatural circumstances and thus, conviction under Section 304-B IPC is not proper. Appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal is bound to take time, hence, application for suspension of sentence should be allowed. 5. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate and counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for suspension of sentence application. It is contended that brother of deceased(PW.1) was first to reach the house of the accused and he found his sister hanging from the fan. It is also contended that deceased had called her mother and informed her with regard to demand of Rs.50 lac. 6. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that presence of organo phosphorus establishes that she was poisoned. It is further contended that whatever was demanded by the accused side in dowry was given. It is also contended that deceased had called her mother and informed her with regard to demand of Rs.50 lac. 6. It is contended by counsel for the complainant that presence of organo phosphorus establishes that she was poisoned. It is further contended that whatever was demanded by the accused side in dowry was given. Deceased was pregnant and was carrying a fetus of six months. There is no reason why she would commit suicide. It is also contended that wrong facts were stated to the complainant about death of the deceased and for this reason he did not want post-mortem to be conducted. 7. It is contended that mobile phone of deceased was recovered which establishes that she had made a call on the fateful day to her mother. It is also contended that conduct of the accused points towards his guilt as he has stated that deceased fell from the steps, however, FSL report shows that she died due to consumption of organo phosphorus. It is further contended that presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act should be drawn against the accused. The judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant does not apply to the facts of this case as in that case post-mortem was conducted on the same day whereas in the present case, post-mortem was conducted after three days. 8. Counsel for the appellant has contended that three jars were prepared Jar-A, B & C, however, only two Jars-A & B were sent to Malkhana. In reply to contention with regard to sending of only two jars, it is contended that the viscera of the deceased were preserved in saturated solution of common salt in jars which were sealed and kept in formal custody. 9. It is contended that PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that his engagement was broken due to demise of deceased, as his engagement was fixed with cousin of deceased's husband. 10. We have considered the contentions and have perused the evidence on record. 11. Complainant's husband i.e. father of the deceased reached the hospital and as per the doctors, they had a talk with him. He refused for the post-mortem and he did not complain about the deceased being subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Further, the FIR was lodged after 2 days of the demise. 11. Complainant's husband i.e. father of the deceased reached the hospital and as per the doctors, they had a talk with him. He refused for the post-mortem and he did not complain about the deceased being subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. Further, the FIR was lodged after 2 days of the demise. From perusal of the statement of doctors and post-mortem, there were no marks of injuries on the person of the deceased and all her vital organs were healthy. The story as put up by PW.1 that he saw the deceased hanging is not established as she had no ligature mark on her person. The theory of demand of dowry from the complainant-mother of the deceased also appears to be doubtful for the very reason that if there was a demand of dowry, the first thing which the victim side would have done was to lodge an FIR. The jars remained with an officer who was not produced before the Court and was deposited in the Malkhana and parts of the body remained with an officer which were not deposited in the Malkhana on the same day but were deposited after two days. The factum of poisioning also cannot be fully established for the very reason that parts of the body were healthy and did not show any sign of consumption of organo phosphorus. 12. Taking note of the above considerations and also the fact that appellant was on bail during trial and disposal of appeal is bound to take time, we deem it proper to allow the application for suspension of sentence. 13. Accordingly, the suspension of sentence application is allowed. It is ordered that the sentence awarded to accused appellant in Sessions Case No.134/2017 shall remain suspended if the appellant furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to the effect that he shall appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so.