The Supreme Court has held that once an appellate court reverses an acquittal and records a conviction for the first time, it cannot send the matter back to the trial court merely for imposing a sentence.
The bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled that the appellate court itself must hear the convict on the question of sentence and thereafter impose an appropriate punishment according to law.
The appellant had faced trial under Sections 376, 312 and 417 of the IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted him of all charges in April 2024. Subsequently, appeals filed by the State and the victim led the High Court to overturn the acquittal and convict him under Sections 376 and 312 IPC. The High Court held that the victim had been induced into a relationship based on a false promise of marriage and that pills had allegedly been administered for termination of pregnancy.
However, after recording conviction, the High Court directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court and instructed the Trial Judge to hear him on sentence and impose punishment. It was this procedural aspect that came under scrutiny before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted a serious legal inconsistency in the procedure adopted by the High Court. According to the Bench, once an appellate court itself reaches a conclusion of guilt after overturning an acquittal, the responsibility of determining punishment cannot be delegated to a lower court.
The Court undertook an elaborate examination of Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates that a convicted person must be heard on the issue of sentence before punishment is imposed.
Referring to earlier precedents including Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, the Court explained that the requirement of hearing an accused on sentence is rooted in principles of natural justice. Sentencing involves judicial discretion and a court may need to consider various mitigating factors including personal circumstances, age, background, and other relevant considerations before determining punishment.
The Bench also relied on earlier decisions including Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, and Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar v. State of Maharashtra. The Court observed that where conviction is recorded for the first time by a higher court, that court may adjourn the proceedings and grant the accused sufficient opportunity to present submissions on sentencing. But such cases do not justify sending the matter back to the trial court solely for the purpose of imposing punishment.
The Supreme Court observed that Section 386(a) CrPC specifically empowers an appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal to “find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law.” Thus, the appellate court has both the authority and obligation to complete the process itself.
Emphasising this principle, the Court held that a court convicting an accused for the first time must necessarily hear the accused on sentencing itself. Delegating only the sentencing exercise to another court after recording conviction would run contrary to statutory provisions and established precedent.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the portion of the High Court order directing the Trial Court to impose sentence and restored the appeals before the High Court. It directed the High Court to fix a date for hearing the convict on sentence and thereafter impose an appropriate punishment in accordance with law. Following such sentencing, the appellant would remain at liberty to challenge both conviction and sentence afresh.
Case Details
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Yadav Versus The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) Etc.
Citation: JURISHOUR-1417-SC-2026
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2863-2864 Of 2026
Date: 26/05/2026
