MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J.

Learned counsel submits that learned trial court, while passing the order dated 26th February, 2018, convicted accused-Ankur Padiya for offences under Sections 364A, 302, 379 IPC apart from Sections 65, 66B, 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act. The order of sentence was passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing in a case of death sentence. The accused was not given opportunity to produce material and other mitigating evidence. In view of the above, the matter needs to be remanded to the trial court for passing a fresh order on the sentence after following the provision of Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C., as interpreted by the Apex Court in various judgments.

2. It is stated that accused has been given right of hearing before imposition of sentence. It should not be for the sake of it but with an opportunity to produce the material. Appellant-Ankur Padiya was not given proper opportunity thus provision of Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. has been violated. In view of the above, the order of sentence deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer. It is submitted that an order on sentence was passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the accused-appellant. Hence, Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. has not been violated by the trial court so as to seek remand of the case for passing a fresh order on the sentence.

4. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in DB Criminal Appeal No. 114/2018 so as Death Reference No. 1/2018 and perused the record.

5. We find that trial court after completion of the proceedings passed a detailed order on 26th February, 2018 sentencing all the accused as follows:

“1. Ankur padiya:

U/s 302 IPC - Death sentence with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 364A IPC - Death sentence with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 379 IPC-One year's Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment.

U/S. 65 I.T. Act-Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 66B I.T. Act-Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 66C I.T. Act-Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 66D I.T. Act-Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.

2. Anoop Padiya:

U/S. 302/120B IPC-Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 364A/120B IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 212 IPC - Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 66B I.T. Act-Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 66C I.T. Act-Two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo four months additional imprisonment.

U/S. 66D I.T. Act-Three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 70,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, the accused to further undergo six months additional imprisonmen