Appellate Court Should Separately Hear Convict On Quantum Of Sentence When Acquittal Is Reversed : SC
Certainly! Here's a detailed explanation of the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court of India that:
“Appellate Court should separately hear the convict on the quantum of sentence when acquittal is reversed.”
This principle emphasizes the right to a fair hearing even at the appellate stage and is rooted in the fundamentals of natural justice, Article 21 of the Constitution, and statutory provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
⚖️ Principle Explained
When a person is acquitted by the trial court, and the appellate court reverses that acquittal and convicts the person, the appellate court must give a separate and fair opportunity to the accused to be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Why is this important?
An acquitted person does not expect to be punished; reversing that acquittal drastically changes their legal position.
Imposing a sentence without hearing the accused on mitigating factors or personal circumstances is a violation of natural justice.
This safeguard ensures that sentencing is fair, individualized, and proportionate.
🔍 Legal Framework
Section 235(2) of the CrPC – Sentencing Hearing
“If the accused is convicted, the judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.”
This section mandates a separate hearing on sentencing after conviction — even more critical when acquittal is overturned on appeal.
📜 Important Supreme Court Case Laws
1. Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977)
The Court laid down that separate sentencing hearings must be conducted after conviction under Section 235(2) CrPC. It stated that sentencing is not mechanical and requires consideration of personal, social, and mitigating factors.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh (1992)
Held that failure to conduct a hearing on the quantum of sentence is a procedural lapse, and such omission could be rectified by remanding the matter for a proper hearing.
3. Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976)
This landmark case emphasized that accused has the right to be heard on sentence, and the court must give an opportunity to place extenuating and mitigating circumstances before imposing punishment.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Balbir Singh (2023)
The Supreme Court reiterated that when an acquittal is reversed, the appellate court must allow a separate hearing on sentence before pronouncing punishment. It observed that failure to do so causes serious prejudice and violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court said: “The right of hearing on sentence is a distinct and substantive right. It is not an empty formality but a crucial safeguard to ensure just punishment.”
5. Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1991)
The Court held that sentencing is not a routine act; it requires application of mind and sensitivity. Hearing the accused after conviction helps in tailoring the punishment to the crime and the criminal.
🧠 Key Considerations During Sentencing Hearing
When an appellate court reverses an acquittal, the hearing on sentence should include:
Age and health of the accused.
Previous criminal record, if any.
Nature and gravity of the offence.
Socio-economic background.
Possibility of reform and rehabilitation.
Any special mitigating circumstances (e.g., mental health, dependency, family obligations).
⚖️ Judicial Implication
If the appellate court convicts the accused and does not conduct a separate sentencing hearing, the sentence may be considered procedurally defective. Courts can:
Remand the case for proper hearing on sentence.
Modify the sentence based on materials placed during appeal.
This ensures the fairness of the criminal process and upholds constitutional protections under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
🔚 Conclusion
The Supreme Court has firmly held that reversal of acquittal by an appellate court must be followed by a separate and fair hearing on the sentence, as per Section 235(2) CrPC and principles of natural justice. Sentencing is not a formality but a critical phase of criminal trial, and the accused has a right to be heard before punishment is imposed.
This principle strengthens procedural justice and ensures that punishment is both just and fair, even at the appellate stage.
RELATED Blog
0 comments