FAIRNESS DEMANDS A PERTINENT TIME

Introduction

The principle of fair conviction and appropriate sentencing requires a reasonable and pertinent time for pre-sentence hearing. Various judicial precedents demonstrate the appellate courts’ efforts to maintain a balance between two fundamental rights: the Right to a Fair Trial and the Right to a Speedy Trial. While procedural safeguards such as pre-sentence hearings protect the accused’s rights, these provisions may also be misused to unduly delay the trial process.

Fortunately, experienced judges in India possess the expertise to distinguish between legitimate requests for time and tactics aimed at protracting trials, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.

The Right to Pre-Sentence Hearing

The Supreme Court of India affirmed the right to pre-sentencing in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and numerous subsequent rulings. This practice aligns with the common law tradition, wherein the prosecution generally does not play a direct role in sentencing, leaving the decision to the judiciary.

Historically, under the previous Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), there was no statutory provision allowing the accused an opportunity to present relevant facts post-conviction. However, Section 235(2) of the CrPC now mandates a pre-sentence hearing, ensuring that the accused is heard before the imposition of sentence.

Legal Framework: Section 235 of the CrPC

Section 235 stipulates that after hearing arguments under Section 234 and on points of law, the judge shall deliver judgment, which may result in either acquittal or conviction.

• Judgment of Conviction: The Sessions Judge must conclude that the accused committed the offence and that the prosecution has proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Judgment of Acquittal: This occurs if the judge finds either no evidence implicating the accused or the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Pre-Sentence Hearing under Section 235(2)

If convicted, Section 235(2) requires the judge to hear the accused on the question of sentence unless proceeding under Section 360 (which allows for alternative sentencing provisions). The sentence must be passed only after such hearing and must conform to the law.

This provision embodies a cardinal principle: sentencing must be based on “reliable, comprehensive information relevant to what the court seeks to do.” (X vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019).

Judicial Interpretation: Cardinal Ruling

The landmark case Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976), decided by a Division Bench comprising Justices Bhagwati and Fazal Ali, provides authoritative guidance on Section 235(2).

Justice Bhagwati held that the pre-sentence hearing is not limited to oral submissions but extends to allowing both parties to place facts and materials before the court, including affidavits and, if contested, evidence. He observed:

“The hearing on the question of sentence would be rendered devoid of all meaning if confined merely to oral submissions without allowing the parties, especially the accused, to produce material relevant to sentencing. Care must be taken to prevent abuse of this hearing as a tool for unduly protracting proceedings.”

Justice Fazal Ali concurred, emphasizing the necessity of safeguarding against the misuse of this procedural safeguard.

Duration and Time for Pre-Sentence Hearing

A critical question arises: How much time should be afforded before the pre-sentence hearing?

The Supreme Court addressed this in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989), recommending that trial courts, upon conviction, should adjourn proceedings to a future date, allowing prosecution and defence to place relevant sentencing material before the court before pronouncing sentence. This principle was reaffirmed in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab (1991).

No Review for Denial of Adjournment

Recognizing potential misuse, courts have held that if the facts and circumstances justify denying adjournment, such decisions will not be subject to review.

In B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2017), it was held that Section 235(2) does not mandate a separate date for sentencing hearings; the necessity of a separate hearing depends on the case’s facts, including requests by the parties.

Pre-Sentence Hearing: Not Always Mandatory

The objective of Section 235(2) is to ensure the accused is heard on sentencing and that sentencing conforms to law. If this condition is satisfied on the same day as conviction, no adjournment is necessary. Imposing unnecessary adjournments may contravene the right to a speedy trial.

In cases such as Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) and Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam (2001), it was held that when the minimum sentence is proposed, the requirement for a separate pre-sentence hearing may not arise.

Procedural Non-Compliance Does Not Bar Justice

Failure to comply strictly with Section 235(2) does not automatically result in miscarriage of justice. Procedural irregularities in sentencing hearings can be remedied on appeal by granting the accused an opportunity to be heard.

Section 465 of the CrPC provides that no judgment, sentence, or order shall be reversed on account of errors or irregularities unless such errors result in failure of justice.

Thus, appellate courts may either remand the case for a fresh sentencing hearing or hear the accused themselves to remedy any procedural lapse.

Conclusion: The Balance Between Fairness and Efficiency

The pre-sentence hearing serves as a vital procedural safeguard, ensuring fair sentencing. However, the courts must vigilantly prevent its abuse as a tool for delay.

Kindly share the above article with your colleagues. 
https://shataxiamicuslex.blogspot.com/2019/08/fairness-demands-pertinent-time.html