An appellate Court has the power to suspend the operation of the order of conviction under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., but such suspension is not the rule and should be an exception made only in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The principal question, raised in this revision, is as to whether a Sessions Judge can, pending an appeal against an order of conviction and sentence, suspend, besides execution of the sentence, the operation of the order of conviction passed against the appellant. Another equally important question, raised in this revision, is as to whether it is enough for a Court, while exercising power under Section389(1) Cr.P.C. to suspend the operation of the order of conviction, if the appellant shows that the order of conviction would, if not suspended, cause irreparable damage to him or is it necessary, even in such a case, for the court, to ascertain if the order of conviction is prima facie supported by evidence on record? In other words, one of the questions, which needs to be answered, in this revision, is as to whether merit of the appeal is a factor, which needs to be taken into account, while considering the question as to whether, during pendency of an appeal, an order, convicting the appellant, needs to be suspended or not? Yet another question of great significance, which this revision raises, is as to whether suspension of sentence during pendency of an appeal shall automatically follow suspension of the order of conviction or whether the appellate court shall, in order to suspend the order of conviction of the appellant under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C., apply parameters different from the ones, which may be applied for suspending the sentence passed against such an appellant?

2. Before I deal with the questions, raised in the present revision, it is necessary that the material facts, leading to this revision, are taken note of. These facts may, in a nutshell, be set out as follows:

(i) Based on an F.I.R., lodged by one Allauddin, a case was registered by the police, the case of the informant being, in brief, thus : On 14.04.2000, at about 9.00 p.m., when the informant, Allauddin, accompanied by one Nuruddin, was returning home from the residence of his Advocate, Abdul Mazid, the informant noticed accused Jalal Ahmed Mazumdar (i.e. the present petitioner) standing near Shiva Hotel, who shouted 'catch hold of him', whereupon accused Tutu Mia Laskar came out from behind a Maruti Van parked nearby, accused Jalal Ahmed Mazumdar caught hold of the informant's collar and accused Tutu Mia Laskar gave a blow on the informant's abdomen by a knife-like weapon. Accused Abdul Haque Laskar was also present with the assailants. Having been so injured, when the informant fell down on the ground, all the three accused went running to the shop of Jalal Ahmed Mazumdar, whereupon Nizamuddin and some others came to the place of occurrence and took the injured, on a vehicle, to Dholai hospital. An F.I.R. with regard to the occurrence was lodged by the injured and a case came to be accordingly registered against the three accused aforementioned. During investigation, police seized blood-stained wearing apparels from the injured and, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against all the three accused under Sections 341/324/307/34IPC.

(ii) During trial, all the three accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them under Sections 341,347 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. In support of their case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereupon statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements, all the accused denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being that of total denial.

(iii) Having found accused Abdul Haque Laskar not guilty of the offences charged with, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, acquitted the said accused of the charges framed against him. The learned trial Court also acquitted the remaining two accused, namely, Tutu Mia Laskar @ Samsul and Jalal Ahmed Mazumdar (i.e. the present petitioner) of the offence under Section 307 read with Section