Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict On Sentence, Cannot Remand To Trial Court For Sentence Alone : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 26) held that if an Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against an acquittal, finds the accused guilty, then it cannot relegate the matter to the trial court for imposing the sentence. The Appellate Court itself has to hear the convict on sentence. “It can be seen from Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., that where in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the court hearing the appeal finds the accused guilty it is required to pass a sentence on him according to law.”, observed a bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while setting aside the Calcutta High Court's Port Blair Circuit Bench decision to relegate the matter to the trial court for the purposes of imposing the sentence on the accused, after overturning his acquittal. The Court said that “if it is the appellate court which is convicting the accused for the first time after reversing the acquittal, the appellate court has to hear the convict on sentence. 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. That will be contrary to Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., and the judgments of this Court.” In this case, the Appellant stood trial before the trial court in Andaman and Nicobar Islands for offences punishable under Sections 376, 312 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”). By the judgment, the trial court acquitted the appellant of all the offences charged, following which an appeal against the acquittal was preferred before the High Court at Port Blair. By way of an impugned order, the High Court directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial Judge and further directed that on his surrender, the Trial Judge shall take him into custody and shall pronounce and impose the proper sentence under Sections 376/312 IPC, after hearing on the point of sentence in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the accused moved to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan stated that the High Court committed an error in relegating the matter for the trial court's consideration for the purposes of imposing a sentence. [See Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513] “Not only should the appellate court not remand the matter to the trial court only for the purpose of imposing a sentence, after it finds accused guilty, it has a bounden duty to hear and impose an appropriate sentence.”, the court observed. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, and the High Court was directed to fix a date for hearing the convict on the issue of sentence.HeadnoteCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) and Section 386(a) — Procedure on reversing an acquittal — Appellate Court's power and obligation to sentence — When an Appellate Court reverses a judgment of acquittal and convicts an accused for the first time, it has a bounden duty to hear the convict on the question of sentence and impose an appropriate sentence itself - The Appellate Court cannot abdicate its judicial function or relegate the matter to the Trial Court solely for the purpose of pronouncing and imposing a sentence - Such a course of remanding the matter for sentencing is alien to the scheme of Section 386(a) of the Cr.P.C - The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's direction to the Trial Judge to impose the sentence - The matter was remitted back to the High Court with a direction to fix a date, hear the convict on the issue of sentence, and pass an appropriate sentence in accordance with law. [Relied on Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Dagdu and Others v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 68; Allauddin Mian and Others Sharif Mian and Another v. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 5; Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar and Others v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 10 SCC 192; Paras 14 - 20].Cause Title: Mukesh Kumar Yadav Versus The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) Etc.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 546Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz, Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Rahim, Adv. Mrs. Tania Tamanna, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s)-Victim : Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Ajith Prasad, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv. For Respondent-State : Mr. Mukesh K Verma, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR

Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict On Sentence, Cannot Remand To Trial Court For Sentence Alone : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Convict On Sentence, Cannot Remand To Trial Court For Sentence Alone : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers