9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the lower appellate Court has the power to suspend the sentence or grant bail after deciding the appeal against the conviction and sentence. 2. Interpretation of Sections 386(e) and 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding the powers of the appellate Court and suspension of sentence pending appeal. 3. Evaluation of the evidence presented in the case and determining the guilt of the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Consideration of the age, character, and antecedents of the accused to decide on extending the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the issue of whether the lower appellate Court has the authority to suspend the sentence or grant bail after deciding the appeal against the conviction and sentence. It clarifies that the lower appellate Court lacks the inherent jurisdiction to suspend the sentence post-appeal decision, as the Code of Criminal Procedure does not explicitly grant such power. The judgment emphasizes that once the lower appellate Court concludes the appeal, it ceases to have the authority to suspend the sentence or grant bail to enable the accused to file a revision application before the High Court. 2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Sections 386(e) and 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, highlighting that these provisions pertain to the powers of the appellate Court during the appeal process and suspension of sentence pending appeal, respectively. It distinguishes that Section 389(3) allows the trial Court to suspend the sentence or grant bail if the convicted person intends to appeal, but this power does not extend to the appellate Court after the appeal has been decided. The judgment underscores that the lower appellate Court cannot suspend the sentence or grant bail to facilitate the accused in approaching the High Court through a revision application. 3. The judgment extensively evaluates the evidence presented in the case to determine the guilt of the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It scrutinizes the arguments made by the counsel for the accused, highlighting minor contradictions in the prosecution's evidence but ultimately upholds the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court regarding the accused's guilt. The judgment emphasizes that the courts below based their decision on substantial evidence, warranting no interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Lastly, the judgment considers the age, character, and antecedents of the accused to decide on extending the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It notes the age of the accused at the time of the incident and his lack of prior criminal history, leading to the decision to release the accused on probation upon furnishing a personal recognizance bond for good behavior. The judgment concludes by partially allowing the revision, maintaining the accused's conviction but ordering release on probation instead of immediate imprisonment.
|
