In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, has ruled that a successor judge is not obligated to rehear a conviction previously pronounced by their predecessor. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Harshad Gupta, who sought a rehearing of his conviction for rape under Sections 376(1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following the transfer of the presiding officer who had convicted him.
Background of the Case:
Harshad Gupta, the appellant, was convicted on April 30, 2015, by Additional Sessions Judge J.R. Banjara, in connection with an FIR registered on May 28, 2013, under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC at the Jashpur Police Station, Chhattisgarh. The case involved serious charges of sexual assault, where Gupta’s father was also implicated for allegedly threatening the victim.
Following the conviction, Gupta requested an exemption from personal appearance, citing an accident. Due to this, the pronouncement of his sentence was delayed. In the interim, the original presiding officer was transferred, and Mr. Mohammad Rizwan Khan assumed charge.
Gupta then filed an appeal with the Chhattisgarh High Court, requesting that the new presiding officer rehear the case, including arguments on conviction. The High Court dismissed his plea, leading him to approach the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Rehearing of Conviction Post Transfer of Judge:
The primary issue in the case was whether a new judge, who assumes charge after the original conviction has been pronounced, is required to rehear the case on the conviction aspect before determining the quantum of sentence.
2. Interpretation of Sections 353 and 354 of the Cr.P.C.:
Gupta’s counsel argued that under these provisions, a judgment must be delivered in open court and the new presiding officer was required to re-evaluate the entire case before sentencing.
3. Applicability of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C.:
Section 235(1) mandates that the court shall pronounce the judgment after hearing the accused, while Section 235(2) stipulates that the accused must be heard on the quantum of sentence following a conviction.
Court’s Decision and Observations:
The Supreme Court, in its detailed order, rejected the appellant’s contention. Justice Surya Kant, delivering the judgment, emphasized that once a judgment of conviction is pronounced, the trial court becomes functus officio in terms of determining the guilt, and the only remaining task is the imposition of the sentence, as provided under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The court highlighted that both components of Section 235 are distinct and operate independently. The hearing on the quantum of sentence is contingent upon the conviction and does not necessitate a rehearing of the conviction itself. The judgment noted:
“Once the judgment of conviction is delivered, the accused has a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence. However, 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). Both clauses operate in their respective fields.”
Further, addressing the appellant’s argument about procedural violations, the court observed:
“There is not even a fragment of violation of Sections 353 or 354 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment of conviction was read out in open court, in the presence of the appellant’s counsel, and it was well understood by his pleader.”
The court underscored that the transfer of the presiding officer did not invalidate the conviction already pronounced, as the successor judge’s role was limited to hearing the accused on the quantum of sentence, as mandated by law.
Final Directions:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the trial court’s current presiding officer to hear Gupta on the question of sentencing within one month. Gupta was instructed to surrender before the trial court on November 4, 2024, failing which legal action would be taken.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Harshad Gupta vs. The State of Chhattisgarh
– Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. — of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6303 of 2019)
– Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Dr. Rajesh Pandey (Senior Advocate), Prashant Kumar Umrao (Advocate on Record), and Nishi Prabha Singh
– Respondent’s Counsel: Arjun D Singh and Ankita Sharma
