Simultaneous hearing of conviction and enhancement appeals protects the accused's right to contest conviction and avoid conflicting outcomes.

Where an accused's appeal against conviction and the State's appeal for enhancement arise from the same case, appellate fairness requires both matters to be heard together and disposed of simultaneously. The accused must retain a meaningful opportunity to contest conviction and oppose enhancement, and the appellate process cannot be managed so that a prior decision on the State's appeal forecloses hearing of the conviction appeal. To avoid conflicting outcomes and preserve natural justice and fair procedure, the proper course is to hear the conviction appeal first and consider enhancement only if conviction is sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, where an appeal against conviction is filed by the accused and an appeal against enhancement of sentence is filed by the State arising out of the same case, the appellate court must hear and dispose of both appeals together and simultaneously, and whether the accused can be deprived of a hearing in the conviction appeals because the State appeal was decided first.

Analysis: The appellate scheme under the Code required the accused to be heard on the challenge to conviction and, in an enhancement appeal, to be given a reasonable opportunity to contest enhancement and even seek acquittal or reduction of sentence. The provisions governing summary dismissal, finality of appellate orders, and appellate powers did not justify deciding the State appeal first in a manner that foreclosed or prejudiced the accused's pending conviction appeals. To avoid conflicting decisions, the proper course was to hear the appeal against conviction first and, only if conviction was sustained, then consider enhancement. The right of hearing was treated as fundamental and supported by the principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee of fair procedure.

Conclusion: The appeals against conviction and the appeal for enhancement had to be heard together and disposed of simultaneously, and the accused could not be denied hearing on their conviction appeals merely because the State enhancement appeal had already been decided.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of preserving the accused's right of hearing and in favour of simultaneous disposal of the connected appeals, and the matter was sent back to the Division Bench for dealing with the accused's appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where conviction and enhancement appeals arise from the same case, appellate fairness requires simultaneous hearing so that the accused's right to challenge conviction is not defeated and conflicting outcomes are avoided.

---