Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal Must Itself Hear Accused On Sentence; Cannot Remand To Trial Court For Sentencing: Supreme Court

"Appellate court cannot relegate the matter to the court below only for the purpose of imposing a sentence after the appellate court had recorded a conviction. That will be contrary to Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., and the judgments of this Court," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 26, 2026, held that when an appellate court reverses a judgment of acquittal and convicts an accused for the first time, it is the bounden duty of that appellate court to hear the convict on the question of sentence and impose the punishment itself.

A bench comprising Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that relegating the matter to the trial court solely for the purpose of sentencing is a procedure "unknown to law" and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The appellant, Mukesh Kumar Yadav, was originally acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, of charges under Sections 376, 312, and 417 of the IPC. On appeal by the State and the victim, the Calcutta High Court reversed the acquittal and found the appellant guilty under Sections 376 and 312 IPC. However, instead of sentencing him, the High Court directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial Judge, who was instructed to take him into custody and pronounce the sentence after a hearing.

The primary question before the court was whether an appellate court, upon reversing an acquittal and recording a conviction for the first time, can remand the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of sentencing. The court also examined the scope of Section 386(a) of the CrPC and the mandatory nature of the right to be heard on sentence under Section 235(2).

Mandatory Requirement To Hear Accused On Sentence

The Court emphasized that Section 235(2) of the CrPC (equivalent to Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is a salutary provision rooted in the principles of natural justice. It observed that once a court records a conviction, it must provide the accused an opportunity to place material on record regarding the quantum of sentence.

The bench noted that this requirement is fundamental because the trial judge or appellate judge has a wide range of discretion in sentencing. Hearing the accused ensures that the choice of punishment fits both the crime and the criminal, satisfying the rule of fair play.

"The requirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who was hitherto concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of guilt should, on being found guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of sentence."

Appellate Court's Power Under Section 386(a) CrPC

The Supreme Court highlighted that Section 386(a) of the CrPC explicitly empowers the appellate court to reverse an order of acquittal, find the accused guilty, and "pass sentence on him according to law." The bench clarified that the judicial function of imposing a sentence is an integral part of the judgment of conviction when rendered by the appellate court.

The court reiterated that the appellate court is obligated to perform this function itself rather than abdicating it in favor of the trial court. It noted that the statutory scheme does not contemplate a "split" procedure where one court convicts and another court sentences in the same phase of the proceedings.

Remand For Sentencing Is Unknown To Law

Relying on the precedent in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, the Court observed that remitting a matter to a Magistrate or Sessions Judge for passing a sentence after the High Court has already recorded a conviction is a course of action unknown to law. The bench noted that such a procedure delays the conclusion of the case and creates procedural incongruity.

The court further observed that while earlier decisions like Santa Singh v. State of Punjab suggested remand might be an option, subsequent larger bench rulings like Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra have clarified that remand is the exception and not the rule. The appellate court should ideally adjourn the matter to a suitable date to hear the convict itself.

"The judicial function of imposing appropriate sentence can be performed only by the appellate court when it reverses the order of acquittal and not by any other court."

Procedure To Be Followed By Higher Courts

The Court laid down that if a High Court or the Supreme Court convicts an accused for the first time by reversing an acquittal, it must adjourn the matter for a short period. This allows the convict to produce necessary data or make oral submissions regarding their socio-economic background, age, and other mitigating circumstances.

In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court committed a palpable error by directing the appellant to surrender before the Trial Judge for sentencing. Such a direction was deemed to be in conflict with the established legal position and the powers of the appellate court.

"The appellate court cannot relegate the matter to the court below only for the purpose of imposing a sentence after the appellate court had recorded a conviction. That will be contrary to Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., and the judgments of this Court."

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and set aside the specific directions of the High Court that mandated the Trial Judge to hear the appellant on sentence. The matter was remitted back to the High Court with a direction to fix a date for hearing the convict on the issue of sentence and to impose an appropriate punishment in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 26 May 2026