<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (8) TMI 154 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168639</link>
    <description>Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a separate post-conviction hearing on sentence in a sessions trial before punishment is imposed. The word &quot;hear&quot; is not confined to oral submissions alone; it extends to placing relevant material on sentence and, where necessary, leading evidence on disputed sentencing facts, subject to judicial control. Denial of this statutory opportunity is a serious breach going to the root of sentencing, causing failure of justice and vitiating the sentence; it is not cured by section 465. The conviction was maintained, but the death sentence was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh sentencing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (8) TMI 154 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168639</link>
      <description>Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires a separate post-conviction hearing on sentence in a sessions trial before punishment is imposed. The word &quot;hear&quot; is not confined to oral submissions alone; it extends to placing relevant material on sentence and, where necessary, leading evidence on disputed sentencing facts, subject to judicial control. Denial of this statutory opportunity is a serious breach going to the root of sentencing, causing failure of justice and vitiating the sentence; it is not cured by section 465. The conviction was maintained, but the death sentence was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh sentencing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168639</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>