SOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , in the present case, learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, after pronouncing the judgment convicting the appellant for a double murder, did not give him an opportunity to be heard on the question of sentence After pronouncing the appellant guilty of murder, he imposed the sentence of death on him, in the same judgment Our attention has been drawn to Sec. 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended) which reads as under:

(2.) A plain reading of sub section (2) shows that it is imperative, that after recording a finding of guilt and an order of conviction, the trial court is under an obligation, to hear the accused on the question of sentence unless the court releases the accused in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 562 Cr. P. C. The question which presently falls for determination is whether the case is to be sent back to the Sessions Judge for rehearing the appellant on the question of sentence or whether this Court sitting in appeal can also hear the appellant on the question of sentence within the meaning of sub -sec. (2) of Sec. 276 Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN Santa Singh Vs. State, AIR 1976 SC 2386, it was held by the Supreme Court that the provisions of Sec 235 (2) Cr. P. C. (which correspond to Sec. 276 (2) Cr. P. C. of this State) are mandatory in character. In this case, their Lordships set aside the sentence of death and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge, with the directions that he would pass the appropriate sentence, after giving to the appellant an opportunity of being heard on the question of sentence. That judgment, however, was explained subsequently in Cr. Appeal No. 441 of 1976 titled Dagdu & Ors etc, V. State of Maha -rashtra, reported in 1977 Criminal Appeal Reporter (Supreme Court) 241. While explaining Santa Singhs case, their Lordships opined : -