TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, on a conviction in a sessions trial, the accused must be heard separately on the question of sentence under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the word "hear" in section 235(2) is confined to oral submissions or includes the right to place material and lead evidence on sentence; and (iii) whether non-compliance with section 235(2) vitiates the sentence or is curable under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issue (i): Whether, on a conviction in a sessions trial, the accused must be heard separately on the question of sentence under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 235(2) creates a distinct post-conviction stage. The court must first record the finding of guilt and, after conviction, hear the accused before passing sentence. The provision reflects the modern sentencing approach and gives the accused a statutory opportunity to place relevant considerations before the court after guilt has been determined.
Conclusion: The accused must be separately heard on sentence after conviction and before sentence is imposed.
Issue (ii): Whether the word "hear" in section 235(2) is confined to oral submissions or includes the right to place material and lead evidence on sentence.
Analysis: The expression "hear" was held to be context-sensitive and not limited to a bare oral hearing. It includes an opportunity to place facts and material bearing on sentence before the court, and where such material is disputed, to lead evidence on the question of sentence, subject to control by the court to prevent undue delay.
Conclusion: The hearing under section 235(2) includes the right to place relevant material and, if necessary, lead evidence on sentence.
Issue (iii): Whether non-compliance with section 235(2) vitiates the sentence or is curable under section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Non-compliance was treated as a serious breach going to the root of the sentencing process, not a mere irregularity. Denial of the statutory hearing causes implicit prejudice and amounts to a failure of justice. Section 465 was therefore held inapplicable to cure the defect where the accused was denied the opportunity to address sentence.
Conclusion: Non-compliance with section 235(2) vitiates the sentence and is not cured by section 465.
Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the death sentence was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh sentencing after giving the accused the statutory opportunity to be heard on sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: A post-conviction hearing on sentence under section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory, includes the opportunity to place relevant material and evidence on sentence, and denial of that hearing vitiates the sentence as an illegality causing failure of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
