SH. LALREMSIAMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned A.P.P. for the State of Mizoram.

(2.) THIS appeal filed under Section 374, CrPC read with Sections 389/439, CrPC is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the learned Session Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei in G.R. Case No. 167/2002 in connection with Lunglei P.S. Case No. 126/2002 convicting the accused -appellant under Section 376(1) IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 7(seven) years from the date of pronouncement of the judgment and order. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and the learned trial court framed charge under Section 376(1), IPC against the accused -appellant. The accused -appellant pleaded not guilty and stood the trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses while the defence examined none in his defence. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the accused -appellant submits that after closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused -appellant was examined under Section 313, CrPC without complying with the provisions there -under. The learned trial court put only two questions to the accused -appellant although, there was scope for putting more questions enabling the accused personally to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and, thereby a prejudice was caused to him.

(3.) AFTER hearing the argument of the defence, the prosecutor has to sum up his case and the accused or his pleader is entitled to reply to the same. This is a statutory requirement before any judgment is prepared by the trial court. From the record, it is found that no such argument took place and the learned Judge passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the accused as stated above. There are two parts namely, conviction and sentence. Conviction can be ordered after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties which should be followed by hearing of the accused person or his counsel on the sentence. In this regard, this Court in Amzad Ali v. Ksh. Nobin Chandra Singh : 2006 (3) GLT 800 dealt with in elaboration about the provisions under Section 235(2), CrPC. Referring to various decisions rendered by the Apex Court, it is held that it is the duty of the court to award proper sentence having regards to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix.