Separate hearing on sentence under Section 235(2) supports substitution of death penalty with life imprisonment where no special circumstances exist.

A distinct hearing on sentence under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required so the convicted person may place relevant material on punishment before the court. Failure to give that opportunity does not affect the conviction, but it does bear on the propriety of the sentence. An appellate court may itself hear the parties on sentence rather than remitting the matter where no further material is available and remand would serve no useful purpose. On the facts, the record disclosed no special circumstance justifying the death penalty, especially where co-assailants received life sentences, and the extreme punishment was replaced with life imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a murder conviction, the death sentence should be substituted with life imprisonment when no separate opportunity under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was given on sentence and the circumstances did not justify the extreme penalty.

Analysis: Section 235(2) embodies the requirement of a distinct hearing on sentence so that the convicted person may place relevant material bearing on punishment before the court. The omission to afford such an opportunity does not affect the conviction, but it bears upon the propriety of the sentence. The appellate court may itself hear the parties on sentence instead of remitting the matter where no further material is available and remand would be an idle formality. On the facts, the occurrence involved no special reason to single out the appellant for the severest punishment, particularly when co-assailants had received life sentences and the record did not disclose circumstances warranting death.

Conclusion: The death sentence was replaced by life imprisonment, and the appeal was allowed to that extent.

---