The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that an appellate court which convicts an accused for the first time after reversing an acquittal must hear the accused on the question of sentence before imposing punishment. This procedural safeguard, rooted in natural justice, cannot be circumvented by remitting the matter to the trial court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, was tried before the Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, for offences under Sections 376 (rape), 312 (causing miscarriage), and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant falsely promised marriage to the victim, Ms. X, engaged in sexual relations with her on that pretext, and later induced her to consume pills to terminate her pregnancy, knowing the promise was false from inception.
Key Facts
- The victim, Ms. X, was a minor at the time of the incident (age not specified in judgment but implied by context).
- The relationship began in early 2015, with sexual intercourse occurring in June 2015.
- The victim became pregnant in July 2015.
- The appellant allegedly persuaded her to take abortifacient pills in August 2015.
- A complaint was filed on 15.09.2015.
- The charge sheet was filed on 20.11.2015.
- The trial commenced in Sessions Case No. 32/2015.
- The victim testified as the main witness (VL).
- Supporting evidence included medical records, witness statements, and digital communications.
Procedural History
- 24.04.2024: Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of all charges, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- 23.04.2026: High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) allowed appeals by the State and the victim (CRA (DB)/4/2024 and CRA (DB)/6/2024), set aside the acquittal, and convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC.
- The High Court, in Paragraph 108 of its judgment, directed the appellant to surrender before the Sessions Judge by 22.05.2026, and ordered the Sessions Judge to impose sentence after hearing.
- 12.05.2026: Supreme Court issued notice on the procedural irregularity.
- 26.05.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
The appellant, through senior counsel Mr. Rauf Rahim, argued that the High Court’s direction to the Sessions Judge to impose sentence violated Section 235 CrPC and the principles laid down in Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra and Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar v. State of Maharashtra. He contended that once the appellate court convicts, it assumes the full judicial responsibility of sentencing and cannot delegate it.
For the Respondent-State and Victim
The State and victim’s counsel, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma and Mr. Kunal Chatterji, respectively, supported the High Court’s conviction but did not contest the procedural flaw. They acknowledged the need for compliance with statutory mandates but focused on the gravity of the offences.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the High Court’s direction to the Sessions Judge to impose sentence. He requested that the matter be remitted to the High Court for hearing on sentence, in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate court, upon reversing an acquittal and convicting the accused for the first time, is obligated under Section 235(2) of the CrPC to hear the accused on sentence, or whether it may remit the matter to the trial court for sentencing.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra and Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar v. State of Maharashtra, arguing that the failure to hear the accused on sentence is not a mere irregularity but an illegality that vitiates the sentence. He emphasized that Section 235(2) mandates a hearing as a matter of natural justice, and Section 386(a) empowers the appellate court to pass sentence directly. He cited Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets to show that appellate courts cannot abdicate their sentencing duty to trial courts.
For the Respondent/State
The State and victim did not dispute the legal principle but focused on the merits of conviction. They conceded that the High Court’s procedure was flawed but argued that the conviction itself was sound and that the sentencing could be properly conducted by the trial court. However, they did not oppose the Supreme Court’s intervention to correct the procedural error.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 235(2) CrPC, which mandates that after conviction, the court shall hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing it. The Court traced the legislative intent behind this provision, citing Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, to affirm that the hearing is not a formality but a fundamental requirement of fair play. The Court observed:
"The requirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who was hitherto concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of guilt should, on being found guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of sentence."
The Court then examined Section 386(a) CrPC, which empowers an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to "find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law." The Court held that this language leaves no room for remittal to the trial court for sentencing. The appellate court, having assumed the role of the convicting authority, must discharge the full judicial function.
The Court rejected the High Court’s direction to the Sessions Judge as a clear violation of both statutory mandate and binding precedent. It distinguished Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, noting that while remand may be permissible in exceptional circumstances, it is not the rule. The Court reaffirmed the principle from Dagdu: "The Court may, in appropriate cases, adjourn the matter in order to give to the accused sufficient time to produce necessary data and to make his contentions on the question of sentence."
The Court also cited its own conduct in Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy and Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar, where it adjourned proceedings to hear the accused on sentence after first-time conviction. The Court emphasized that the appellate court’s duty is not merely to convict but to ensure the entire sentencing process is conducted in accordance with law.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part. It set aside the portion of the High Court’s judgment dated 23.04.2026 that directed the Sessions Judge to impose sentence. The High Court’s conviction under Sections 376 and 312 IPC is upheld. The matter is remitted to the High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) to hear the appellant on the question of sentence. The High Court shall fix a date for such hearing, afford the appellant full opportunity to make submissions, and then impose an appropriate sentence in accordance with law. The appellant shall be at liberty to challenge the conviction and sentence afresh after imposition. The High Court shall complete this process within 60 days of receipt of this judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Appellate Courts Cannot Delegate Sentencing
- Practitioners must now argue that any direction by an appellate court to a trial court to impose sentence after reversing an acquittal is legally invalid.
- The appellate court’s power under Section 386(a) is plenary; it cannot outsource sentencing.
- Any such direction is a nullity and must be challenged on appeal.
Natural Justice Applies Even in Appellate Convictions
- The right to be heard on sentence is not contingent on whether the conviction is by trial or appellate court.
- Even if the accused has not previously contested sentencing, the appellate court must provide a meaningful opportunity.
- This includes time to submit affidavits, character references, medical reports, or mitigating circumstances.
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
-
Failure to hear the accused on sentence vitiates the sentence, even if the conviction is sound.
-
Courts must adjourn proceedings if necessary to ensure compliance, as held in Dagdu.
-
This applies equally to High Courts, Sessions Courts hearing appeals, and even the Supreme Court.
-
Always raise the absence of a Section 235 hearing as a ground of appeal in cases involving appellate conviction.
-
File a writ petition under Article 226 if the High Court refuses to hear on sentence after reversing acquittal.
-
In sentencing submissions, emphasize personal circumstances, lack of prior record, and rehabilitation potential.
