http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: NARPAL SINGH & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/02/1977

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BHAGWATI, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1066            1977 SCR  (2) 901  1977 SCC  (2) 131

ACT:             Sentence--Right to be heard by the accused on the  ques-         tion   of   sentence  and the duty of the court  to  pass  a         sentence after conviction--Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 2         of 1974), 1973--Section 235(2)--De novo trial not  necessary         in such cases on the question of convictions.

HEADNOTE:             Appellants Nirpal Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh         were  convicted under s. 302 J.P.C. and sentenced  to  death         while  the  appellants Devinder Singh, and Maha  Singh  were         convicted  under  s. 302 but sentenced to  imprisonment  for         life  by  the  Sessions Judge.  The High  Court  upheld  the         convictions as also the sentences while accepting the refer-         ence 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 and Maha  Singh         and  partly allowing the appeals of the other  three  appel-         lants, the Court maintained their convictions set aside  the         sentence  of death passed on them and remitted their   cases         to  the  trial Court for passing sentences  on  them  afresh         under s. 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court             HELD:  (1) Though the commitment inquiry was held  under         the  Code of 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  appellants,  Narpal         Singh,  Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh in the instant  case         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 passed under s.  302,         remetting  their cases to the Sessions Judge was not  neces-         sary. [902 F-G, 903 E]         Santa Singh v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 S.C.R. 229,  reiter-         ated.             (2)  When a case is remitted by this Court to  the  Ses-         sions Court for giving a hearing on the question of sentence         under  s.  235(2) of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  1973.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       there would be fresh evidence and the  principle  that   the         Sessions  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 and         circumstances  of  the present case or to  cases  where  the         trial  has  ended in a conviction but the  matter  has  been         remitted to the trial Court for hearing the case only on the         question of sentence. [903 A-D]         Pyare  Lal v. State of Punjab [1962] 3 S.C.R.  328,  distin-         guished.

JUDGMENT:             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 149         of 1976.             Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and   Order         dated 19-7-1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crimi-         nal  Appeal No. 1205 of 1974 and Murder Reference No. 60  of         1974.         902             Frank  Anthony,  Hatbans Singh and Harjender  Singh  for         Appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4.         A.N. Mulla, and Harbans Singh for Appellants Nos. 3 and 5.         R.L. Kohli for the Respondent.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             FAZAL  ALI,  J.--After 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  rea-         sons that we have already given, we are fully satisfied  and         convinced .that the prosecution case against the  appellants         has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the  appel-         lants  were rightly convicted by the Sessions Judge and  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 delivering 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(1) this Court has taken the  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 accused  on  the         question  of sentence and give him an opportunity  to  ,lead         evidence  which  may also be allowed to be rebutted  by  the         prosecution.   This  procedure has not been adopted  by  the         learned  Sessions  Judge and, therefore,  the  sentences  of         death  passed   on  the  appellants   Narpal  Singh,  Gurdev         Singh  and Jagmohan Singh cannot be sustained  although  the         convictions  recorded against them are confirmed by  us  and         will not be reopened under any circumstance whatsoever.             Counsel  for  the State has drawn our attention  to  the         fact that in some cases the accused have raised the question         that  once the case is remitted to the Sessions Judge,  then         the  accused  is entitled to claim a de novo  trial  on  the         question of conviction also.  In  this  connection, reliance         was placed on Pyare Lal v. State of Punjab(2).  In the first         place,  this case was based on an interpretation of ss.  251         to  259  of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  1898,  and  the         reason why this Court held that the proceedings by a succes-         sor  Judge cannot be started from the stage left out by  his         predecessor  was that  a  Judge who had heard the  whole  of         the evidence before had the advantage of watching the demea-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

       nour  of the witnesses which would be lost if the  successor         Judge was to proceed from the stage left by his predecessor.         It is true that under s. 326 of the Code of Criminal Proce-          *Only  pages 33 to 36 of the Judgment are reported as  .per         directions of the Court.         (1) [1976] s.c.c. 190.         (1) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328.         903         dure,  1973,  there is a discretion given to  the  successor         Magistrate  to act on the evidence already recorded and  not         to  hold  a  de novo trial and no such provision is made  in         case  of a trial by the Sessions Judge or a  Special  Judge.         The  ratio  of  Pyare Lal’s case (supra),  however,  is  not         applicable  to the present case.  Once the judge  who  hears         the evidence delivers a judgment of conviction, one part  of         the trial comes to an end.  The second part of the trial  is         restricted  only to the question of sentence and so  far  as         that  is  concerned, when a case is remitted by  us  to  the         Sessions  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 Sessions Judge may not act on evidence already  recorded         before  his  predecessor and must conduct a  de  novo  trial         would  not  be violated.  In these circumstances, therefore,         the  ratio  of Pyare Lal’s case mentioned  above  cannot  be         applied or projected into the facts and circumstances of the         present  case  or to cases where the trial has  ended  in  a         conviction  but  the matter has been remitted to  the  Trial         Court for hearing the case only on the question of sentence.            So  far as the case of Devinder Singh and Maha Singh  are         concerned as they have already been given sentences of  life         imprisonment and this is the minimum sentence that could  be         passed  under  s. 302 I.P.C. it is not  necessary  to  remit         their  cases  to the  Sessions Judge.  The  convictions  and         sentences of these two accused are, therefore, confirmed and         their  appeals are dismissed. As regards the appeals by  the         three   other  appellants,  namely, Narpal  Singh,  Jagmohan         Singh  and  Gurdev Singh, we   confirm   their   convictions         which would not be reopened under any circumstances, but set         aside  the sentence of death passed on them and remit  their         cases  to   the Trial Court for passing  sentences  on  them         afresh  after   hearing   the accused in the  light  of  the         observations made by us and to this extent only the  appeals         of  the three appellants are allowed so far as   their  sen-         tences are concerned.         S.R.                                        Appeals   partly         allowed.         904