When it is not necessary for court to hear accused on the point of sentence?
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 10.05.2001
Appellants:Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath
vs.
Respondent:State of AssamHon'ble Judges/Coram:
vs.
Respondent:State of AssamHon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
(1) When the conviction is under Section 302, I.P.C. (with or without the aid of Section 34 or 149 or 120B of I.P.C.), if the Sessions Judge does not propose to impose death penalty on the convicted person, it is unnecessary to proceed to hear the accused on the question of sentence. Section 235 (2) of the Code will not be violated if the sentence of life imprisonment is awarded for that offence without hearing the accused on the question of sentence.
(2) In all other cases, the accused must be given sufficient opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence.
(3) The normal rule is that after pronouncing the verdict of guilty, the hearing should be made on the same day and the sentence shall also be pronounced on the same day.
(4) In cases where the Judge feels or if the accused demands more time for hearing on the question of sentence (especially when the Judge propose to impose death penalty), the proviso to Section 309 (2) is not a bar for affording such time.
(5) For any reason, the Court is inclined to adjourn the case after pronouncing the verdict of guilty in grave offences, the convicted person shall be committed to jail till the verdict on the sentence is pronounced. Further detention will depend upon the process of law.
By R. P. Sethi, J. and S. N. Phukan, J., (concurring)
The mandate of the Legislature is clear and unambiguous that no adjournment can be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed upon him. In a case punishable with death or imprisonment for life, there is no difficulty for the Court where the sentence proposed to be imposed is alternative sentence of life imprisonment but if it proposes to award the death sentence, it has discretion to adjourn the cases in the interests of justice. Despite the bar of third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 309, the Court, in appropriate cases, can grant adjournment for enabling the accused persons to show cause against the sentence proposed on him particularly if such proposed sentence is sentence of death. Therefore, in all cases where a conviction is recorded in cases triable by the Court of Sessions or by special courts, the Court is enjoined upon to direct the accused convict to be immediately taken into custody, if he is on bail, and kept in jail till such time the question of sentence is decided. After the sentence is awarded, the convict is to undergo such sentence unless the operation of the sentence awarded is stayed or suspended by a competent court of jurisdiction. Such a course is necessitated under the present circumstances prevalent in the country and is in consonance with the spirit of law. A person granted bail has no right to insist to remain at liberty on the basis of the orders passed in his favour prior to his conviction.
Citation; AIR2001SC2231, 2001CriLJ2902, 2001(3)Crimes77(SC), (2001)5SCC714,
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/whether-it-is-necessary-to-hear-accused.html
