A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case delves into the procedural nuances of criminal law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The primary contention was whether a new Presiding Officer, appointed after the conviction judgment was delivered but before the sentence hearing, should rehear the case, including the question of conviction. The Supreme Court held that a judgment of conviction under Section 235(1) CrPC is independent of the subsequent hearing on sentencing under Section 235(2). Once conviction is finalized, the court becomes functus officio concerning the conviction, leaving only sentencing to be determined by the new Presiding Officer. This case reaffirms the distinct procedural stages in criminal trials, clarifying that a change in the Presiding Officer post-conviction does not warrant a rehearing of the conviction.

Keywords: Judgment of Conviction, Quantum of Sentence, Functus Officio, Section 235 CrPC, Procedural Fairness.

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: Harshad Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 4080 of 2024
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
• Author: Not specified
• Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 701; 2024 INSC 776
• Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 235(1) and 235(2), Sections 353 and 354, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 376(1) and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Judgments Overruled: None
• Law Subject: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This appeal arose from a procedural dispute concerning Sections 235(1) and 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant, convicted of charges under Sections 376(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sought a rehearing of his case after the original trial judge was transferred before sentencing could be completed. The High Court had rejected the plea, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the conviction judgment delivered by the original judge remained valid or required a rehearing by the succeeding judge.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. An FIR was registered against the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 IPC on 28 May 2013.
2. The appellant was tried under Sections 376(1) and 506 IPC in 2013, culminating in a conviction judgment on 30 April 2015.
3. Post-conviction, the appellant sought adjournments citing medical reasons, delaying the hearing on sentencing.
4. During this period, the Presiding Officer, who delivered the conviction, was transferred and replaced by a new officer.
5. The appellant approached the High Court, seeking a direction for the new judge to rehear the case, including the question of conviction, citing Sections 353 and 354 CrPC.
6. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the conviction judgment and directing the new judge to proceed with sentencing.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Does a change in the Presiding Officer post-conviction mandate a rehearing of the conviction?
2. Can the successor judge proceed solely with the sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) CrPC?
3. Did the original conviction judgment comply with procedural requirements under Sections 353 and 354 CrPC?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellant argued that the conviction judgment was incomplete under Sections 353 and 354 CrPC, requiring the new judge to rehear the case.
2. It was contended that the conviction judgment lacked clarity and finality and was thus non-compliant with Section 235(1) CrPC.
3. The appellant asserted that the new Presiding Officer must reconsider the conviction before determining the sentence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondent maintained that the conviction judgment was valid, self-explanatory, and fully compliant with Sections 353 and 354 CrPC.
2. They argued that the appellant’s right to a sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) CrPC remained intact despite the transfer of the Presiding Officer.
3. The respondent opposed the reopening of the conviction, asserting that it would undermine the judicial process.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The Court emphasized that Sections 235(1) and 235(2) CrPC operate in distinct spheres. A conviction judgment under Section 235(1) is conclusive and does not require reconsideration due to a change in the Presiding Officer.
• The sentencing hearing under Section 235(2) CrPC can proceed independently before a new judge.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Procedural delays caused by the appellant’s adjournments do not invalidate the conviction judgment.

c. Guidelines

1. A conviction judgment, once delivered under Section 235(1) CrPC, finalizes the question of guilt.
2. A successor judge is competent to conduct sentencing hearings under Section 235(2) CrPC without rehearing the conviction.
3. The procedural requirements under Sections 353 and 354 CrPC, including the pronouncement of judgment in open court, must be strictly adhered to.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case reaffirms the principle that procedural bifurcation under Section 235 CrPC ensures fairness without unnecessary delays. The judgment protects the integrity of the judicial process by disallowing redundant rehearings while safeguarding the accused’s right to be heard during sentencing.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1214.
2. Mohd. Hussain alias Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), (2012) 9 SCC 408.

Important Statutes Referred

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 235, 353, 354.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 506.