Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab
AIR 1956 SC 526: (1976) 4 SCC 190
JUDGES: P.N. Bhagwati and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
Date of Decision: 17-08-1976
FACTS:-
This appeal, by special leave, raises an interesting question of law relating to the construction of Section 235(2) of the Cr. PC, 1973. The appellant was tried before the Sessions Judge for committing double murder where he was represented by a lawyer during the trial and after the evidence was concluded and the arguments were heard, the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case for pronouncing judgment. On a certain date, when the appellant was present without his lawyer, the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant of the offence U/s 302 of IPC and sentenced him to death without giving him an opportunity to be heard on sentence. An appeal was filed before the High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence the appeal by special leave.
ISSUE:-
Does the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiate the sentence passed by the Court?
JUDGMENT:-
N. Bhagwati, J
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the provision contemplated under Section 235(2) of the code is clear and explicit. It requires that in every trial before the Court of Sessions, there must first be a decision as to the guilt of the accused. The Court, in the first instance, must deliver a judgment convicting or acquitting the accused. If the accused is acquitted, then no further question arise but if he is convicted, then the court has to “hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law”. When a judgment is rendered convicting the accused, he is, at that stage, to be given an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence and it is only after hearing him that the court can proceed to pass the sentence. While interpreting Section 235(2) of the code, the expression “hear the accused” means producing material bearing on sentence which has so far not come before the court. The hearing on the question of sentence, would be rendered devoid of all meaning and content and it would become an idle formality, if it were confined merely to hearing oral submissions without any opportunity being given to the parties and particularly to the accused, to produce material in regard to various factors bearing on the question of sentence, and if necessary, to lead evidence for the purpose of placing such material before the court. The Court should give an opportunity to the accused to be heard on the question of sentence, as contemplated by Section 235(2), as he might be able to persuade the Court to impose the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. The breach of the mandatory requirement of Section 235(2) cannot, in the circumstances, be ignored as inconsequential and it must be held to vitiate the sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Court.
Further it was observed that the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 235(2) was not a mere irregularity curable under Section 465 of the Cr. PC, 1973. It is much more serious. It amounts to by-passing an important stage of the trial and omitting it altogether, so that the trial cannot be aid to be that contemplated in the Code. It is a different kind of trial conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code. This deviation constitutes disobedience to an express provision of the Code as to the mode of trial and such a deviation cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity. It goes to the root of the matters and the resulting illegality is of such a character that it vitiates the sentence.
Fazal Ali, J
Hon’ble Justice Fazal Ali entirely agreed with Hon’ble Justice P. N. Bhagwati and added few lines. It was observed that Section 235(2) of the code enjoins on the Court that after passing a judgment of conviction the Court should stay its hands and hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing the sentence in accordance with the law. This obviously postulates that the accused must be given an opportunity of making his representation only regarding the question of sentence and for this purpose he may be allowed to place such materials as he may think fit but which may have bearing only on the question of sentence. ‘The statute seeks to achieve a socio-economic purpose and is aimed at attaining the ideal principle of proper sentencing in a rational and progressive society. The modern concept of punishment and penology has undergone a vital transformation and the criminal is now not looked upon as a grave menace to the society which should be got rid of but is a diseased person suffering from mental malady or psychological frustration due to subconscious reactions and is, therefore, to be cured and corrected rather than to be killed or destroyed’. It refers to an instance where the accused is the sole bread earner of the family and in such cases death penalty has been inflicted upon the accused and has been executed without giving him an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence then it amounts not only to a physical effacement of the criminal but also a complete socio-economic destruction of the family which he leaves behind. It is because of this Section 235(2) has been added in the code so that even if the highest penalty of death is passed on the accused he does not have a grievance that he was not heard on his personal, social and domestic circumstances before the sentence was given.
HELD:-
The Court held that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiate the sentence passed by the Court as this is the mandatory requirement which cannot be ignored by the Courts. An accused person should get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
