A judgment of conviction is final, and a new presiding officer must only hear the accused on sentencing, not on the conviction itself.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The appellant's grievance is against the Judgment dated 13.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, whereby his prayer to re-open the judgment of his conviction, hear the arguments afresh by the new Presiding Officer, and then deliver a judgment of conviction or acquittal, has been turned down. The facts may be noticed briefly:

3. FIR No. 03/13 was registered on 28.05.2013 at Police Station Jashpur under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the “IPC”). The appellant is the principal accused. His father was also named as accused of threatening the victim with dire consequences if she would not withdraw the complaint. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(1) and 506 of the IPC against the appellant, in 2013. The Sessions trial was conducted and the final hearing was also concluded. The learned Additional Session’s Judge, vide order dated 28.04.2015, adjourned the case for 30.04.2015 for pronouncement of judgment. The appellant was held guilty and convicted vide judgment pronounced on 30.04.2015.

4. Before he could be heard on the quantum of the sentence, the appellant moved an application on 30.04.2015 under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the “Cr.P.C.”) to exempt him from personal appearance on the ground that he had met with an accident. In view of that application, the matter was adjourned on a few occasions to enable the appellant to recover from the accident.

5. In the meanwhile, the Presiding Officer of the Court, namely, Mr. J. R. Banjara, who had convicted the appellant, was transferred between 04.05.2015 and 15.05.2015. A new Presiding Officer, namely, Mr. Mohammad Rizwan Khan was posted in his place.

6. After that, the appellant approached the High Court seeking a direction to the new Presiding Officer to re-hear the case, including on the question of conviction. He relied upon Sections 353 and 354 of the Cr.P.C. It was contended that the new Presiding Officer was obligated not only to hear the appellant on the question of sentence but also on the point of conviction in terms of the above-mentioned provisions. The High Court, vide interim order dated 19.06.2015, stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court. Finally, vide the impugned order dated 13.05.2019, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, having found that:

(i) the judgment of conviction was duly pronounced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. J.R. Banjara; and

(ii) there was no illegality in the successor-in-office of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to hear and determine the quantum of the sentence, even in a case where the judgment of conviction was pronounced by his predecessor-in-office.

7. The High Court, consequently, directed the new Presiding Officer to hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order in terms of Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.

8. The aggrieved appellant is before us.

9. We have heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“Judgment of acquittal or conviction

1. After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case.

2. If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 360 hear the accused on the question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.”

11. A plain reading of the provision leaves no room to doubt that a judgment of conviction shall have two components; namely,

(i) Judgment on the point of conviction; and

(ii) Where the accused is convicted, a separate order of sentence to be passed according to law, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence.

12. The aforesaid provision mandates that once the judgment of conviction is delivered, the accused has a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence. This is so, in view of the well-established principle of law that various