SANTA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 17-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 16 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
... 
SANTA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
August 17, 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
229 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 2 of 1974), ss. 235 and 465-Scope of 
The appellant was· convicted by the Sessions. Court under s. 302, IPC, and 
~entenced to death. On the date of the judgment his advocate was not present. 
The trial court. did not give. the .. accused an opportunity to be. heard in regard 
to the sentence as required by s. 235(2), Cr.P.C., 1973. The appellant aim 
<lid not insist on bis right to be heard. 
The conviction and sentence 
were 
confirmed by the High Court. 
Even ih the High C-0urt the accused did not 
complain that the trial court had committed a breach of s. 235(2). 
On the question whether the sentence is vit:.ated because of the violation 
of s. 235(2), · 
· 
· 
HELD : The matter should be remanded to- the trial court for giving an 
-opportunity to the appellant on the question of sentehee. 
Per Bhagwati, J : (1) Under s. 235 (1) the court must, in the first instance, 
deliver a judgment convicting or acquitting the. accused. If the accused 
is 
acquitted, no further question arises. If the accused is convicted, at that 
stage, he must bei giveh an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence, 
and it is only after hearing him that the court can pass sentence. (232 D·E] 
(2) Section 235(2) is a new provision in consonance with the modern trends 
in. penology and sentencing pro<;edures. 
Sentencing is an important stage in 
the process of administration of criminal justice, and should not be consigmed 
to a subsidiary position. 
Many factors have to be considered before a proper 
sentence is passed such as the nature of thei 
offence; the 
circumstanceSL-
extenuating or aggravating-of '{he offence; the· prior criminal record, if any, 
of the offender; his age; his. record of employment; his background with referenee 
to education; home life, sobDiety and social. adjustment; 
his 
emotional and 
mental condition; the prospects for his rehabilitation; the possibility of 
his 
return to a normal life in the community; the possibility of treatment or train. 
ing of the offender; the possibility that the sentence may _serve as a deterrent to 
crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, 
if any 
for such a deterrent in respect to the particular type of offence. The material 
relating to these factors may be placed before the court by means of affidavits. 
The hearing contemplated bys. 235(2) is not cqnfined merely to hearing oral 
submissions, but .it i§ also intended to give an opportunity to the' prosecution 
ahd the accused to place before the court facts and material relating to the 
various factors bearing on the question o~ sentence, and if they are contested 
by the other side, then to produce evidence for the purpose of establishing 
those factors. 
Otherwise, the hearing would be devoid of meaning and content. 
The Court must however be vigilaht to ·see that this hearing on the question 
of sentence is not abused and turned'· into an instrument for unduly protracting 
the proceedinigs. (232 E; G 233 F; 235 A-BJ 
Ediga AnammG1 v. State of Andhra Pradesh [l974J 3. S.CR. 329 referred 
to. 
(3) If the triai e-0urt. had, instead of sentenCing the appellant to death, 
imposed on him the sentence of life imprisonment, he would not be' aggrieved 
bY the breach of s. 235(2), because, even after hearing the appellant,. the trial 
court could not have passed a' more favourable. irehtence. 
But the trial eo:urt 
imposed death sentence and the possibility cannot be . ruled out that if the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant has been given an opportunity to produee material and make sub-
missions on the question of sentehce, he might have been able to persuade the 
trial court to impose the lesser penalty, [235 D-E] 
(4) Since the section is a new provision it is quite possible that many 
lawyers and judges might be unaware of it. In the present case obviously the 
trial comt as well as the appellant's advocate in the High Court were hot 
aware of it. 
No inference can, therefore, be drawn against the appellant that 
B 
he had nothing to say from his omission to raise this point in 
the 
High 
Court. [236 Al 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(5) (a) Non-compliance with the requirement of the sectioh 
cannot 
be 
describ.ed as a me,re irregularity curable under s. 465. It amounts to by.passing 
an important stage of the trial 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.