The Supreme Court held that when an appellate court reverses an acquittal and convicts an accused for the first time, the appellate court itself must hear the accused on the question of sentence and impose the sentence. It cannot send the matter back to the Trial Court only for sentencing. The Court therefore set aside that portion of the Calcutta High Court’s judgment which had directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court and directed the Trial Judge to impose sentence.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals. It did not examine the correctness of the conviction at this stage and held that such consideration was premature.
The Court only interfered with the sentencing procedure adopted by the High Court. It set aside the portion of the High Court judgment which directed the Trial Judge to hear and impose sentence after the High Court had itself reversed the acquittal and recorded conviction.
The matter was remitted to the High Court. The High Court was directed to fix a date for hearing the convict on the issue of sentence and thereafter impose an appropriate sentence in accordance with law. After sentence is imposed, the accused would be at liberty to challenge the conviction and sentence afresh.
Facts
The accused had faced trial before the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 376, 312 and 417 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted him of all charges.
The victim and the State filed appeals before the High Court against the acquittal. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 312 IPC.
However, after convicting him, the High Court did not itself hear him on sentence. Instead, it directed him to surrender before the Trial Court and further directed the Trial Judge to hear him and impose sentence.
This procedure became the central issue before the Supreme Court.
Issues
The key issue before the Supreme Court was:
When an appellate court reverses an acquittal and convicts an accused for the first time, can it send the case back to the Trial Court only for imposing sentence?
The connected procedural issue was whether the right of hearing on sentence must be exercised before the very court which records conviction for the first time.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The accused challenged the High Court’s procedure. The grievance was that after recording conviction for the first time, the High Court could not abdicate the sentencing function and send the matter to the Trial Court only for deciding sentence.
The argument was that the sentencing hearing is a substantive part of criminal procedure and must be conducted by the court which records conviction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The victim and the State supported the conviction recorded by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court confined itself at this stage only to the correctness of the sentencing procedure adopted by the High Court and did not examine the merits of the conviction.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court examined Section 235(2) CrPC, corresponding to Section 258 BNSS, which provides that if the accused is convicted, the Judge must hear the accused on the question of sentence and then pass sentence according to law.
The Court also examined Section 386(a) CrPC, corresponding to Section 427 BNSS, which deals with the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. The provision allows the appellate court to reverse an acquittal, find the accused guilty, and pass sentence according to law.
From these provisions, the Court held that when the appellate court itself records conviction after reversing acquittal, it must also hear the convict on sentence and impose sentence itself. It cannot transfer only the sentencing exercise to the Trial Court.
Precedent Analysis
The Supreme Court relied upon Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, where it was held that hearing the accused on sentence satisfies the rule of natural justice and helps the Court choose the appropriate punishment.
The Court also referred to Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, which held that if the convicting court fails to hear the accused on sentence, the higher court can cure the breach by giving a real and effective hearing.
In Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, the Court had already held that after reversing acquittal and recording conviction, the appellate court cannot remit the matter to the Trial Court for passing sentence; imposing sentence is the duty of the appellate court itself.
The Court also referred to Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy and Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar v. State of Maharashtra, where the higher court, after convicting accused persons for the first time, adjourned the matter to hear them on sentence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court reasoned that sentencing is not a mechanical formality. Once conviction is recorded, the accused must be given an opportunity to place relevant circumstances before the Court.
This may include factors such as age, background, prior record, family circumstances, mitigating circumstances, and any other material relevant to sentencing.
The Court held:
“A court which convicts the accused for the first time has to hear the accused on sentence.”
The Court further held:
“The appellate court cannot relegate the matter to the court below only for the purpose of imposing a sentence after the appellate court had recorded a conviction.”
Therefore, the High Court committed an error by directing the Trial Judge to impose sentence after the High Court itself had recorded conviction.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and set aside only the portion of the High Court judgment which had sent the matter to the Trial Court for sentencing.
The appeals before the High Court were restored for the limited purpose of hearing the convict on sentence. The High Court must now hear the convict and impose an appropriate sentence itself.
The judgment is significant because it clarifies that when an appellate court convicts an accused for the first time after reversing an acquittal, it cannot avoid or delegate the sentencing function. The right to be heard on sentence is part of fair procedure and natural justice.
Key takeaway:
The court that convicts for the first time must itself hear the accused on sentence and impose sentence. Sentencing cannot be outsourced to the Trial Court.