# \ NARPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA

- **Citation:** [1977] 2 S.C.R. 901
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-02-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1976
- **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/narpal-singh-others-v-state-of-haryana-7119
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

901
Sentence-Rig/it to be heard by the accused on the question of selllence
and the duty of the court to pass a sentence after cJtrviction-Code of Criminal
Procedure (Act 2 of 1974), 1973-Section 235(2)-De novo trial 1101 necessary
in such cases 011 the question of convictions.
A
B
Appellants Nirpal Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh were convicted
under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death while the appellants Devinder Singh,
and Maha Singh were convicted under s. 302 but sentenced to imprisonment C
for life by the Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the convictions as also
the sentences while accepting the reference under s. 366 made by the Sessions
Judge and dismissing the appeals by the accused.
On appeal by special leave, the appellants contended inter alia,
that
the
·sentence passed against them was bad as the Sessions Judge, after delivering
the judgment of conviction has not given any opportunity to them of being
heard on the question of sentence separately.
Dismissing the appeals of Devinder Singh irnd Maha Singh and partly allowing the appeals of the other three appellants, the Court maintained their convictions set aside the sentence of death passed on them and remitted their
ca~es
to the trial Court for passing sentences on them afresh under s. 235(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The Court
D
HELD : (1) Though the commitment inquir.y was held under the Code of E
Criminal Procedure, 1973, since the procedure under s. 235(2) has not been
adopted by the Sessions Judge, the sentence of death passed on the a,ppellants,
Narpa\ Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh in the instant ca,se cannot be
sustained.
Since Devinder· Singh and Maha Singh have already been· given
sentences of life imprisonment which is the minimum sentence that could be
pa~sed under s. 302, remelting their cases to the Sessions Judge was not necessary. (902 F-G, 903 EJ
fjanta Singh v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 S.C.R. 229, reiterated.
F
(2) When a case is remitted by this Court to the SeS!lions Court for giving
a hearing on the question of sentence under s. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, there. would be fresh evidence and the
principle
that the
Se~sions Judge may not act on evidence already recorded before his predecessor
and must conduct de novo trial would not be violated. The ratio of Pyare Lal's
case [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328 cannot be applied or projected into the facts a,nd
circumstances of the present case or to cases where the trial has ended in a G
conviction but the matter has been remitted to the trial Court for hearing the
·case only on the question of sentence. [903 A-DJ
·
Pyare Lal v. State of Punjab [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328, distinguished.

## Text

\
NARPAL SINGH & OTHERS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
February 1, 1977
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.]
901
Sentence-Rig/it to be heard by the accused on the question of selllence
and the duty of the court to pass a sentence after cJtrviction-Code of Criminal
Procedure (Act 2 of 1974), 1973-Section 235(2)-De novo trial 1101 necessary
in such cases 011 the question of convictions.
A
B
Appellants Nirpal Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh were convicted
under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to death while the appellants Devinder Singh,
and Maha Singh were convicted under s. 302 but sentenced to imprisonment C
for life by the Sessions Judge. The High Court upheld the convictions as also
the sentences while accepting the reference under s. 366 made by the Sessions
Judge and dismissing the appeals by the accused.
On appeal by special leave, the appellants contended inter alia,
that
the
·sentence passed against them was bad as the Sessions Judge, after delivering
the judgment of conviction has not given any opportunity to them of being
heard on the question of sentence separately.
Dismissing the appeals of Devinder Singh irnd Maha Singh and partly allowing the appeals of the other three appellants, the Court maintained their convictions set aside the sentence of death passed on them and remitted their
ca~es
to the trial Court for passing sentences on them afresh under s. 235(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The Court
D
HELD : (1) Though the commitment inquir.y was held under the Code of E
Criminal Procedure, 1973, since the procedure under s. 235(2) has not been
adopted by the Sessions Judge, the sentence of death passed on the a,ppellants,
Narpa\ Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh in the instant ca,se cannot be
sustained.
Since Devinder· Singh and Maha Singh have already been· given
sentences of life imprisonment which is the minimum sentence that could be
pa~sed under s. 302, remelting their cases to the Sessions Judge was not necessary. (902 F-G, 903 EJ
fjanta Singh v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 S.C.R. 229, reiterated.
F
(2) When a case is remitted by this Court to the SeS!lions Court for giving
a hearing on the question of sentence under s. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, there. would be fresh evidence and the
principle
that the
Se~sions Judge may not act on evidence already recorded before his predecessor
and must conduct de novo trial would not be violated. The ratio of Pyare Lal's
case [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328 cannot be applied or projected into the facts a,nd
circumstances of the present case or to cases where the trial has ended in a G
conviction but the matter has been remitted to the trial Court for hearing the
·case only on the question of sentence. [903 A-DJ
·
Pyare Lal v. State of Punjab [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328, distinguished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 149
of 1976.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order dated H
19-7-1975 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1205 of 1974 and Murder Reference No. 60 of 1974.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
902
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 2 $.C.R~
Frank Anthony, Harbans Singh and Harjender Singh for Appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
A. N. Mu/la, and Harbans Singh for Appellants Nos. 3 and 5.
R. L. Kohli for the Respondent.
The *Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL Au, J.-Atfer having gone through the entire evidence on
the record and the judgment of the courts below and after hearing
counsel for the parties and for the reasons that we have alreaay
given, we are fully satisfied and convinced that the prosecution case
against the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and
that the appellants were rightly convicted by the Sessions Judge anCl
the High Court.
This, however, does
not dispose
of the matter
completely,
because it appears that the commitment inquiry was held under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the
Sessions
Judge
after
de\jvering the judgment of conviction has not given any opportunity
to the accused of being heard on the question of sentence separately.
In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab(') this Court has taken the view
view that under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, it is incumbent on the Sessions Judge delivering a judgment
of conviction to stay his hands and hear the accmed on the question
of sentence and give him an opportunity to ·lead evidence which may
also be allowed to be rebutted by the prosecution.
This
procedure
has not been adopted by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore,
the sentences of death passed
on
the
appellants
Narpal Singh,
Gurdev Singh and Jagmohan Singh cannot be sustained although the
convictions recorded against them are confirined by us and will not
be reopened under any circumstance whatsoever.
Counsel for the State has drawn our attention to the fact that irr
some cases the accused have raised the question that once the case
is remitted to the Sessions Judge, then the accused is entitled to claim
a de nova trial on the question of conviction also.
In this connection, reliance was placed on Pyare Lal v. State of Pwzjab( 2). In
the first place, this case was based on an interpretation of ss. 251 to
259 of the Code of Crimina~ Procedure, 1898, and the reason why
this Court held that the proceedings by a suc~ssor Judge cannot be
started from the stage left out by his predecessor was that a Judge
who had heard the whole of t)le evidence before had the advantage
of watching the demeanour of the witnesses which would be lost if
the successor Judge was to proceetl from the stage left by his predecessor.
It is true that under s. 326 of the Code of Criminaj Proce-
*Only pages 33 to 36 of the Judgment are reported as per directions of the Court
(I) [1976] s.c.c. 190.
(l) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 328.
-
NARPAL SINGH v. HARYANA (Fazal Ali, J.)
903
dure, 1973, there is ~ discretion given to the successor Magistrate t\)
act on the evidence already recorded and not to hold
a
de nova
trial and no such provision is made in case of a trial by the Sessions
Judge or a Special Judge.
The ratio of Pyare Lal's case (supra),
however, is not applicable to the present case.
Once the Judge who
hears the evidence delivers ·a judgment of conviction, one part of the
trial comes to an end. The second part of the trial is restricted only
to the question of sentence and so far as that is concerned, when a
case is remitted by us to the Sessions Court for giving a hearing on
the question of sentence under s. 235(2) of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973, there would be fresh evidence and the principle that
the Sessions Judge may not act on evidence already recorded before
bis predecessor •. and must conduct a de nova trial
would
not be
violated.
In these circumstances, therefore, the ratio of Pyare Lal' s
case mentioned above cannot be applied or projected into the facts
and circumstances of the present case or to cases where the trial has
ended in a conviction but the matter has been remitted to the Trial
Court for hearing the case only on,the question of sentence.
A
B
c
So far as the case of Devinder Singh and Maha Singh are cqncerned as they have already been given sentences of life imprisonIlilent and this is the minimum sentence that could be passed under
D
s. 302 I.P.C. it is not necessary to remit their cases to th~ Sessions
Judge.
The convictions and sentences of these two
accused
are,
therefore, confirmed and their appeals are dismissed.
As regards the
appeals by the three
other
appellants,
namely,
Narpal
Singh,
Jagmohan Singh and Gurdev Singh, we
confirm their
convictions
which would not be reopened under any circumstances, but set aside
the sentence of death passed on them and remit their cases to
the
E
Trial Court for passing sentences on them afresh after hearing the
accused in the light of the observations made by 'Us and lo this extent
only the appeals of the three appellants are allowed so far as
their
J>entences are concerned.
S.R.
Appeals partly allowed.