2005 (1) TMI 755 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether appeals against conviction and appeals for enhancement of sentence should be disposed of simultaneously.
2. The effect and remedy available if the procedure of simultaneous disposal is not followed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Simultaneous Disposal of Appeals:
The primary question referred to the Bench was whether appeals against conviction and appeals for enhancement of sentence should be disposed of simultaneously. The court noted that the Division Bench had enhanced the sentence of the accused in the State's appeal without considering the pending appeals filed by the accused challenging their conviction. This was deemed erroneous as per Section 377(3) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that an accused must be given a reasonable opportunity to plead for acquittal or reduction of sentence when an appeal for enhancement is filed by the State. The court emphasized that both appeals should be heard together to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure that the accused's right to a fair hearing is upheld.

2. Effect and Remedy for Non-simultaneous Disposal:
The court discussed the implications of not following the procedure of simultaneous disposal. It was observed that the Division Bench, while enhancing the sentence, did not hear the accused regarding their appeals for acquittal or reduction of sentence, thereby depriving them of their right to a fair hearing. The court referenced Section 386(b) of Cr.P.C., which outlines the powers of the appellate court in appeals from conviction, but found that it did not provide guidance for the situation where the sentence is enhanced without hearing the accused's appeal. The court also referred to the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which allow the court to recall the order passed in the State's appeal and hear both appeals together. The court cited the Full Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court in HABU v. STATE OF Rajasthan, which emphasized the importance of the right to a fair hearing and the need for courts to provide reasonable opportunities for the accused to be heard.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that where an appeal against conviction and an appeal for enhancement of sentence are filed, they must be disposed of simultaneously and together. The procedure adopted by the Division Bench in the State's appeal was erroneous, and the appeals filed by the accused for their acquittal should be heard and decided. The court emphasized the fundamental right of the accused to a fair hearing and the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements to ensure justice is served. The matter was referred back to the Division Bench to hear the appeals filed by the accused.