Summary
Once a trial judge has pronounced a judgment of conviction under Section 235(1) CrPC, the court is functus officio on conviction; a successor presiding officer only hears the accused on sentence under Section 235(2) and cannot be required to rehear the case on conviction. The appeal was dismissed and sentencing directed within a month.
Issues
- Whether, after the judge who pronounced the conviction is transferred, the successor presiding officer must rehear the accused on conviction as well as on sentence.
- Whether the judgment of conviction failed to satisfy Sections 353 and 354 CrPC so that there was no judgment in law under Section 235(1).
Provisions considered
- Section 235, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read as having two components: a judgment on conviction under sub-section (1), and, if convicted, a hearing on sentence and an order of sentence under sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) depends on, but cannot annul, a conviction recorded under sub-section (1). (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Section 353(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The conviction had been read out in open court in the presence of the appellant's counsel, who understood it, so the pronouncement complied with the provision. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Section 354(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The trial court's judgment was self-contained and reasoned and contained all the elements required by the provision; there was no violation. (¶¶ 17, 18)
Held
- Section 235(2) gives a convicted accused the right to be heard on the quantum of sentence so that mitigating circumstances can be weighed in fixing a proportionate sentence. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The two sub-sections of Section 235 operate in separate fields. The procedure under sub-section (2) arises only after a conviction under sub-section (1) and cannot undo that conviction. (¶ 15)
- Once the judgment of conviction was pronounced, the trial court became functus officio as to conviction. The transfer of the presiding officer did not entitle the accused to a fresh hearing on conviction; the successor only had to hear him on sentence and pass a sentence order. The contrary contention was misconceived. (¶¶ 14, 16)
- The conviction satisfied Section 354(1), and it was read out in open court in the presence of the appellant's counsel as Section 353(1) requires, so the argument that there was no judgment in law failed. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The trial court was directed to hear the appellant on sentence within one month of receiving the order; the appellant was directed to surrender on 04.11.2024 and be produced on the sentencing dates.