Post-appeal suspension power, revisional restraint, and probation principles govern sentence and conviction review in criminal matters.

After disposal of an appeal, the lower appellate court has no residual power under Sections 386 or 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend sentence or grant bail merely to facilitate a revision, because it becomes functus officio. Concurrent findings sustaining a conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code are not to be disturbed in revision unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or vitiated by legal error; here, the conviction was maintained. On the facts, probation was considered appropriate because the accused was about 17 years old, had no prior conviction, and was not shown to be a habitual offender, so reformative treatment was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lower appellate court has power to suspend the sentence or grant bail after disposal of the appeal so as to enable the accused to approach the High Court in revision; (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction; (iii) Whether the accused was entitled to the benefit of probation.

Issue (i): Whether the lower appellate court has power to suspend the sentence or grant bail after disposal of the appeal so as to enable the accused to approach the High Court in revision.

Analysis: The appellate powers under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operate at the stage of hearing and deciding the appeal and do not authorise the court, after disposing of the appeal, to keep the sentence in suspension or grant bail for the purpose of filing revision. Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is confined to the court by which the accused is convicted, where an appeal is intended to be presented and the statutory conditions are satisfied. Once the appeal is decided, the appellate court becomes functus officio.

Conclusion: The lower appellate court had no power to suspend the sentence or grant bail after disposal of the appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on the testimony of the victim and other witnesses, and the minor contradictions were held to be collateral and not sufficient to discredit the prosecution case. In revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from an error of law.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained and no interference was called for.

Issue (iii): Whether the accused was entitled to the benefit of probation.

Analysis: The accused was about 17 years old on the date of the incident, had no previous conviction, and was not shown to be a habitual offender. In these circumstances, the Court found that the object of reformative treatment justified release on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The accused was held entitled to the benefit of probation.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained, but the custodial sentence was not directed to be undergone immediately and was replaced by probationary relief for the stated period, resulting in a partial success for the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: After disposal of an appeal, the lower appellate court has no residual power under Sections 386 or 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to suspend the sentence or grant bail for the purpose of enabling a revision, and concurrent findings of guilt will not be disturbed in revision absent perversity or legal error; however, probation may be granted on the facts of the case where the offender is young and otherwise suitable for reform.

---