SANTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, raises an interesting question of law relating to the construction of Sec. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant was tried before the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for committing a double murder, one of his mother and the other of her second husband. He was represented by a lawyer during the trial and after the evidence was concluded and the arguments were heard, the learned Sessions Judge adjourned the case to 13th February, 1975 for pronouncing the judgment. It appears that on 13th February, 1975, the judgment was not ready and hence the case was adjourned to 20th February, 1975 and again to 26th February, 1975. The Roznamcha of the proceedings shows that on 26th February, 1975 the appellant was present without his lawyer and the learned Sessions Judge pronounced the judgment convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. It was common ground that after pronouncing the judgment convicting the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge did not give the appellant an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence to be imposed on him and by one single judgment, convicted the appellant and also sentenced him to death. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court and the case was also referred to the High Court and the case was also referred to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The High Court agreed with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge and confirmed the conviction as also the sentence of death. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.

(2.) The appeal is limited to the question of sentence and the principal argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that in not giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard in regard to the sentence to be imposed on the him after the judgment was pronounced convicting him, the learned Sessions Judge committed a breach of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that vitiated the sentence of death imposed on the appellant. This argument is a substantial one and it rests on the true interpretation of Section 235 (2). This is a new provision and it occurs in Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as follows :

(3.) This new provision in Section 235 (2) is in consonance with the modern trends in penology and sentencing procedures. There was no such provision in the old Code. Under the old Code. whatever the accused wished to submit in regard to the sentence had to be stated by him before the arguments concluded and the judgment was delivered. There was no separate stage for being heard in regard to sentence. The accused had to produce material and make his submissions in regard to sentence on the assumption that he was ultimately going to be convicted. This was most unsatisfactory. The legislature, therefore, decided that it is only when the accused is convicted that the question of sentence should come up for consideration and at that stage, an opportunity should be given to the accused to be heard in regard to the sentence. Moreover, it was realised that sentencing is an important stage in the process of administration of criminal justice - as important as the adjudication of guilt - and it should not be consigned to a subsidiary position as if it were a matter of not much consequence. It should be a matter of some anxiety to the court to impose an appropriate punishment on the criminal and sentencing should, therefore, receive serious attention of the court. In most of the countries of the world, the problem of sentencing the criminal offender is receiving increasing attention and that is largely because of the rapidly changing attitude towards crime and criminal. There is in many of the countries, intensive study of the sociology of crime and that has shifted the focus from the crime to the criminal, leading to a widening of the objectives of sentencing and, simultaneously, of the range of sentencing procedures. Today, more than ever before, sentencing is becoming a delicate task, requiring an inter-disciplinary approach and calling for skills and talents very much different from those ordinarily expected of lawyers. This was pointed out in clear and emphatic words by Mr. Justice Frankfurter :