Supreme Court clarifies procedure after conviction: Harshad Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 1st October 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 776

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

What happens when a judge who convicts an accused is transferred before sentencing? Does the new judge need to re-hear the case, or can they proceed directly to sentencing? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This judgment clarifies the roles of the presiding officer who convicts and the successor officer regarding sentencing. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

On May 28, 2013, an FIR (First Information Report) was filed at the Jashpur Police Station, leading to charges against Harshad Gupta (the appellant) under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant’s father was also accused of threatening the victim. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(1) and 506 of the IPC against the appellant in 2013. After the trial concluded, the Additional Sessions Judge scheduled the judgment for April 30, 2015. On that date, the appellant was found guilty.

Before the court could hear arguments on the sentence, the appellant requested an exemption from appearing in court, citing a recent accident. The matter was adjourned to allow him to recover. During this time, the presiding judge, Mr. J.R. Banjara, was transferred, and Mr. Mohammad Rizwan Khan took his place.

The appellant then approached the High Court, arguing that the new judge should re-hear the entire case, including the conviction. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the conviction was valid and the new judge only needed to hear arguments on the sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially moved an application under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from personal appearance due to a road accident. Subsequently, the Presiding Officer was transferred. The appellant then approached the High Court seeking a direction to the new Presiding Officer to re-hear the case, including on the question of conviction. The High Court stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition, holding that the conviction was valid and the new Presiding Officer was only required to hear the appellant on the quantum of sentence.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court primarily considered Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which outlines the procedure for judgments of acquittal or conviction.

Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. states:

“ 235. Judgment of acquittal or conviction.
(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.
(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360, hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.”

The court interpreted this section to mean that a judgment of conviction has two distinct parts: (i) the judgment on the point of conviction and (ii) the order of sentence. The court also referred to Sections 353 and 354 of the Cr.P.C., which deal with the manner of delivering and the content of judgments, respectively.

Section 353(1) of the Cr.P.C. states:

“The judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced, or the substance of such judgment shall be explained, in open Court either immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders,-
(a) by the Presiding Officer of the Court; or
(b) by any other officer of the Court duly authorised by the Presiding Officer in this behalf.”

Section 354(1) of the Cr.P.C. states:

“Every judgment referred to in section 353, –
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or other law under which, the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the new Presiding Officer should re-hear the entire case, including the conviction, because the judgment of conviction did not satisfy the requirements of Section 353 read with Section 354 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant contended that the new Presiding Officer was obligated to hear the appellant not only on the question of sentence but also on the point of conviction.

The State argued that the judgment of conviction was validly delivered by the previous judge, and the new judge was only required to hear the appellant on the question of sentence, as per Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether a new Presiding Officer, who takes charge after a judgment of conviction has been pronounced by the previous officer, is obligated to re-hear the case on the question of conviction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or books. The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C.

The court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 235 of the Cr.P.C.: Deals with the judgment of acquittal or conviction.
• Section 353 of the Cr.P.C.: Deals with the manner of delivering judgments.
• Section 354 of the Cr.P.C.: Deals with the content of judgments.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

The court emphasized that once a judgment of conviction is delivered, the court becomes functus officio (having performed its office) concerning the conviction. The only remaining task is to determine the sentence, for which the procedure under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. must be followed.

The Supreme Court stated, “Once the judgment dated 30.04.2015 was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., whereupon the Trial Court became functus officio for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C.”

The court also noted, “The process and procedure contemplated under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. cannot annul the judgment of conviction recorded under sub-section (1) thereof. Both clauses operate in their respective fields, though sub-section (2) is contingent upon the outcome under sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C.”

The court further clarified, “The next step to be taken by the Presiding Officer, was to list the case to accord a hearing to the appellant on the quantum of sentence. That is precisely what has been done in the instant case.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspects of the Cr.P.C., particularly Section 235. The Court emphasized the distinction between the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, highlighting that they are two separate stages. The Court also focused on the fact that the previous judge had already delivered a valid judgment of conviction that complied with the requirements of Sections 353 and 354 of the Cr.P.C.

Key Takeaways

• Once a judgment of conviction is pronounced, the court that pronounced the judgment becomes functus officio regarding the conviction.
• The new Presiding Officer is only required to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence, not on the conviction itself.
• The process and procedure contemplated under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. cannot annul the judgment of conviction recorded under sub-section (1) thereof.
• The judgment of conviction must satisfy the requirements of Sections 353 and 354 of the Cr.P.C.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the current Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The appellant was also directed to surrender before the Trial Court on November 4, 2024.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a Presiding Officer is transferred after pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the successor officer is not required to re-hear the case on the point of conviction but is only required to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence. This clarifies the procedure under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. and reinforces the finality of a conviction once it is pronounced. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Harshad Gupta vs. The State of Chhattisgarh clarifies the procedure to be followed when a Presiding Officer is transferred after pronouncing a judgment of conviction. The court held that the new Presiding Officer is not required to re-hear the case on the point of conviction but only to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence. This decision reinforces the finality of a conviction once it is pronounced and ensures that the sentencing process is carried out efficiently.