Case: Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel&amp;Anr Vs. State Of Maharashtra

effective implementation of the provision contained in Section 235(2), it is not always necessary to remand the matter to the court which has recorded the conviction….Remand is an exception, not a rule, and ought therefore to be avoided as far as possible in the interests of expeditious, though fair, disposal of cases” 29. Again in Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1981 SC 1220 ; this Court held as follows: “The obligation to hear the accused on the question of sentence which is imposed by Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not discharged by putting a formal question to the accused as to what he has to say on the question of sentence. The Judge must make a genuine effort to elicit from the accused all information which will eventually bear on the question of sentence.” 30. Later, in Allauddin Mian & ors. v. State of Bihar; (1989) 3 SCC 5 , this Court also considered the effect of non-compliance of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and held that the provision is mandatory. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: “The requirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who was hitherto concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of guilt should, on being found guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of sentence. This is all the more necessary since the Courts are generally required to make the choice from a wide range of discretion in the matter of sentencing. To assist the Court in determining the correct sentence to be imposed the legislature introduced Sub-section (2) to Section 235. The said provision therefore satisfies a dual purpose; it satisfies the rule of natural justice by according to the accused an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence and at the same time helps the Court to choose the sentence to be awarded. Since the provision is intended to give the accused an opportunity to place before the Court all the relevant material having a bearing on the question of sentence there can be no doubt that the provision is salutary and must be strictly followed. It is clearly mandatory and should not be treated as a mere formality.” 31. Later, three Judges Bench in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab; (1991) 4 SCC 341 indicated the necessity of adjourning the case to a future date after convicting the accused and held as follows: “On finding that the accused committed the charged offences, Section 235(2) of the Code empowers the Judge that he shall pass sentence on him according to law on hearing him. Hearing contemplated is not confined merely to oral hearing but also intended to afford an opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused to place before the Court facts and material relating to various factors on the question of sentence and if interested by either side, to have evidence adduced to show mitigating circumstances to impose a lesser sentence or aggravating grounds to impose death penalty. Therefore, sufficient time must be given to the accused or the prosecution on the question of sentence, to show grounds on which the prosecution may plead or the accused may show that the maximum sentence of death may be the appropriate sentence or the minimum sentence of life imprisonment may be awarded, as the case may be.” 32. This Court in a recent judgment in Rajesh Kumar (supra) examined at length the evaluation of sentencing policy and the concept of mitigating circumstances in India relating to the death penalty. The meaning and content of the expression “hearing the accused” under Section 235(2) and the scope of Sections 354(3) and 465 Cr.P.C. were elaborately considered. The Court held that the object of hearing under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. being intrinsically and inherently connected with the sentencing procedure, the provisions of Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. which calls for recording of special reason for awarding death sentence, must be read conjointly. The Court held that such special reasons can only be validly recorded if an effective opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. is genuinely extended and is allowed to be exercised by the accused who stands convicted and is awaiting the sentence. 33. In our view, the principles laid down in the above cited judgments squarely applies on the question of awarding of sentence and we find from the records that the High Court has only mechanically recorded what the accused has said and no attempt has been made to elicit any information or particulars from the accused or the prosecution which are relevant for awarding a proper sentence. The accused, of course, was informed by the Court of the nature of the show-cause-notice. What was the nature of show cause notice? The nature of the show-cause-notice was whether the life sentence awarded by the trial court be not enhanced to death penalty. No genuine effort has been made by the Court to elicit any information either from the accused or the prosecution as to whether any circumstance exists which might influence the Court to avoid and not to award death sentence. Awarding death sentence is an exception, not the rule, and only in rarest of rare cases, the Court could award death sentence. The state of mind of a person awaiting death sentence and the state of mind of a person who has been awarded life sentence may not be the same mentally and psychologically. The court has got a duty and obligation to elicit relevant facts even if the accused has kept totally silent in such situations. In the instant case, the High Court has not addressed the issue in the correct perspective bearing in mind those relevant factors, while questioning the accused and, therefore, committed a gross error of procedure in not properly assimilating and understanding the purpose and object behind Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]33. In our view, the principles laid down in the above cited judgments squarely applies on the question of awarding of sentence and we find from the records that the High Court has only mechanically recorded what the accused has said and no attempt has been made to elicit any information or particulars from the accused or the prosecution which are relevant for awarding a proper sentence. The accused, of course, was informed by the Court of the nature of theWhat was the nature of show cause notice? The nature of thewas whether the life sentence awarded by the trial court be not enhanced to death penalty. No genuine effort has been made by the Court to elicit any information either from the accused or the prosecution as to whether any circumstance exists which might influence the Court to avoid and not to award death sentence. Awarding death sentence is an exception, not the rule, and only in rarest of rare cases, the Court could award death sentence. The state of mind of a person awaiting death sentence and the state of mind of a person who has been awarded life sentence may not be the same mentally and psychologically. The court has got a duty and obligation to elicit relevant facts even if the accused has kept totally silent in such situations. In the instant case, the High Court has not addressed the issue in the correct perspective bearing in mind those relevant factors, while questioning the accused and, therefore, committed a gross error of procedure in not properly assimilating and understanding the purpose and object behind Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.In Santa Singh (supra), this Court has extensively dealt with the nature and scope of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. stating that such a provision was introduced in consonance with the modern trends in penology and sentencing procedures. The Court noticed today more than ever before, sentencing has become a delicate task, requiring anapproach and calling for skills and talents very much different from those ordinarily expected of lawyers. In Santa Singh, (supra) the Court found that the requirements of Section 235(2) were not complied with, inasmuch as no opportunity was given to the appellant, after recording his conviction, to produce material and make submissions in regard to the sentence to be imposed on him. The Court noticed in that case the Sessions Court chose to inflict death sentence on the accused and the possibility could not be ruled out that if the accused had been given an opportunity to produce material and make submissions on the question of sentence, as contemplated by Section 235(2), he might have been in a position to persuade the Sessions Court to impose a lesser penalty of life imprisonment. The Court, therefore, held the breach of the mandatory requirement of Section 235(2) could not, in the circumstances, be ignored as inconsequential and it can vitiate the sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Court. The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence of death and remanded the case to the Sessions Court with a direction to pass appropriate sentence after giving an opportunity to the accused to be heard. Further, in Santa Singh, the Court also held ashearing contemplated by Section 235(2) is not confined merely to hearing oral submissions, but it is also intended to give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused to place before the court facts and material relating to various factors bearing on the question of sentence and if they are contested by either side, then to produce evidence for the purpose of establishing the same.The above issue again came up before this Court in Dagdu & ors. v. State of Maharashtra; (1977) 3 SCC 68 ; wherein the three Judges Bench, referring to the judgment in Santa Singh, held asCourt on convicting an accused must unquestionably hear him on the question of sentence. But if, for any reason, it omits to do so and the accused makes a grievance of it in the higher court, it would be open to that court to remedy the breach by giving a hearing to the accused on the question offurther held asa proper and effective implementation of the provision contained in Section 235(2), it is not always necessary to remand the matter to the court which has recorded the conviction….Remand is an exception, not a rule, and ought therefore to be avoided as far as possible in the interests of expeditious, though fair, disposal ofAgain in Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu; AIR 1981 SC 1220 ; this Court held asobligation to hear the accused on the question of sentence which is imposed by Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not discharged by putting a formal question to the accused as to what he has to say on the question of sentence. The Judge must make a genuine effort to elicit from the accused all information which will eventually bear on the question of sentence.Later, in Allauddin Mian & ors. v. State of Bihar; (1989) 3 SCC 5 , this Court also considered the effect ofof Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and held that the provision is mandatory. The operative portion of the judgment reads asrequirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who was hitherto concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of guilt should, on being found guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of sentence. This is all the more necessary since the Courts are generally required to make the choice from a wide range of discretion in the matter of sentencing. To assist the Court in determining the correct sentence to be imposed the legislature introduced(2) to Section 235. The said provision therefore satisfies a dual purpose; it satisfies the rule of natural justice by according to the accused an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence and at the same time helps the Court to choose the sentence to be awarded. Since the provision is intended to give the accused an opportunity to place before the Court all the relevant material having a bearing on the question of sentence there can be no doubt that the provision is salutary and must be strictly followed. It is clearly mandatory and should not be treated as a mere formality.Later, three Judges Bench in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab; (1991) 4 SCC 341 indicated the necessity of adjourning the case to a future date after convicting the accused and held asfinding that the accused committed the charged offences, Section 235(2) of the Code empowers the Judge that he shall pass sentence on him according to law on hearing him. Hearing contemplated is not confined merely to oral hearing but also intended to afford an opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused to place before the Court facts and material relating to various factors on the question of sentence and if interested by either side, to have evidence adduced to show mitigating circumstances to impose a lesser sentence or aggravating grounds to impose death penalty. Therefore, sufficient time must be given to the accused or the prosecution on the question of sentence, to show grounds on which the prosecution may plead or the accused may show that the maximum sentence of death may be the appropriate sentence or the minimum sentence of life imprisonment may be awarded, as the case may be.This Court in a recent judgment in Rajesh Kumar (supra) examined at length the evaluation of sentencing policy and the concept of mitigating circumstances in India relating to the death penalty. The meaning and content of the expressionunder Section 235(2) and the scope of Sections 354(3) and 465 Cr.P.C. were elaborately considered. The Court held that the object of hearing under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. being intrinsically and inherently connected with the sentencing procedure, the provisions of Section 354(3) Cr.P.C. which calls for recording of special reason for awarding death sentence, must be read conjointly. The Court held that such special reasons can only be validly recorded if an effective opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. is genuinely extended and is allowed to be exercised by the accused who stands convicted and is awaiting the sentence.