LexNARPAL SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\
NARPAL SINGH & OTHERS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
February 1, 1977
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
901
Sentence-Rig/it to be heard by the accused on the question of selllence
and the duty of the court to pass a sentence after cJtrviction-Code of Criminal
Procedure (Act 2 of 1974), 1973-Section 235(2)-De novo trial 1101 necessary
in such cases 011 the question of convictions.
A
B
Appellants Nirpal Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh were convicted
under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death while the appellants Devinder Singh,
and Maha Singh were convicted under s. 302 but sentenced to imprisonment C
for life by the Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the convictions as also
the sentences while accepting the reference under s. 366 made by the Sessions
Judge and dismissing the appeals by the accused.
On appeal by special leave, the appellants contended inter alia,
that
the
·sentence passed against them was bad as the Sessions Judge, after delivering
the judgment of conviction has not given any opportunity to them of being
heard on the question of sentence separately.
Dismissing the appeals of Devinder Singh irnd Maha Singh and partly allow-
ing the appeals of the other three appellants, the Court maintained their convic-
tions set aside the sentence of death passed on them and remitted their
ca~es
to the trial Court for passing sentences on them afresh under s. 235(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The Court
D
HELD : (1) Though the commitment inquir.y was held under the Code of E
Criminal Procedure, 1973, since the procedure under s. 235(2) has not been
adopted by the Sessions Judge, the sentence of death passed on the a,ppellants,
Narpa\ Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh in the instant ca,se cannot be
sustained.
Since Devinder· Singh and Maha Singh have already been· given
sentences of life imprisonment which is the minimum sentence that could be
pa~sed under s. 302, remelting their cases to the Sessions Judge was not neces-
sary. (902 F-G, 903 EJ
fjanta Singh v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 S.C.R. 229, reiterated.
F
(2) When a case is remitted by this Court to the SeS!lions Court for giving
a hearing on the question of sentence under s. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, there. would be fresh evidence and the
principle
that the
Se~sions Judge may not act on evidence already recorded before his predecessor
and must conduct de novo trial would not be violated. The ratio of Pyare Lal's
case [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328 cannot be applied or projected into the facts a,nd
circumstances of the present case or to cases where the trial has ended in a G
conviction but the matter has been remitted to the trial Court for hearing the
·case only on the question of sentence. [903 A-DJ
·
Pyare Lal v. State of Punjab [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328, distinguished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 149
of 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated H
19-7-1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1205 of 1974 and Murder Reference No. 60 of 1974.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 $.C.R~
Frank Anthony, Harbans Singh and Harjender Singh for Appel-
lants Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
A. N. Mu/la, and Harbans Singh for Appellants Nos. 3 and 5.
R. L. Kohli for the Respondent.
The *Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL Au, J.-Atfer having gone through the entire evidence on
the record and the judgment of the courts below and after hearing
counsel for the parties and for the reasons that we have alreaay
given, we are fully satisfied and convinced that the prosecution case
against the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and
that the appellants were rightly convicted by the Sessions Judge anCl
the High Court.
This, however, does
not dispose
of the matter
completely,
because it appears that the commitment inquiry was held under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the
Sessions
Judge
after
de\jvering the judgment of conviction has not given any opportunity
to the accused of being heard on the question of sentence separately.
In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab(') this Court has taken the view
view that under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, it is incumbent on the Sessions Judge delivering a judgment
of conviction to stay his hands and hear the accmed on the question
of sentence and give him an opportunity to ·lead evidence which may
also Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.