Section 326 CrPC| Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Plea For Re-Hearing Of Appeals, Upholds Conviction Despite Change In Bench Composition

A Division Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Archana Puri observed, “it would indeed be a travesty of justice to hold that appeals should be heard afresh while ignoring decision dated 29.01.2020 even while we feel no necessity thereof, before sentencing the respondents or that decision dated 29.01.2020 whereby the respondents have been convicted should be set to naught merely because one of the Members of the Bench delivering the decision, has demitted office on superannuation.”

The accused-respondents had been acquitted in a case filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with an FIR. Several appeals challenging their acquittal were pending before the High Court. A division bench earlier had allowed these appeals, convicting the accused-respondents of multiple offenses under Sections 302/201/120B/364/148 read with Section 149 IPC.

However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there were delays in scheduling the sentencing of the accused-respondents. During this period, one of the bench members retired. The appeals were eventually listed before a different Division Bench, and the respondents' counsel argued that since the decision on conviction was not a complete judgment, and the bench composition had changed, the appeals should be heard afresh.

Senior Advocate A.P.S.Deol appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai appeared for the Respondents.

The appellants' counsel contended that the conviction judgment was a valid and complete judgment, duly signed by both bench members. Rehearing the appeals would essentially amount to a review, which is not permissible.

The respondents' counsel argued that since the judgment did not include the sentencing portion, it was not a complete judgment. They asserted that a subsequent Division Bench could not pass a sentence to complete the judgment without considering the severity of the sentence, which required a fresh opportunity for all parties to be heard.

The Court found no merit in the arguments put forth by the respondents' counsel. It noted that during the original appeal hearing, all parties, including the accused-respondents, were provided ample opportunity for argument before the conviction decision was announced.

The Court referred to Section 326 CrPC and various Supreme Court judgments observing that,

“Section 326 Cr.P.C. confers a discretion upon any judge or magistrate, who has succeeded another judge or magistrate to act on the evidence in an inquiry or trial so recorded by his predecessor.”

The Court emphasized that it would be a miscarriage of justice to either completely re-hear the appeals or nullify the conviction decision simply because one of the bench members had retired.

The Court rejected the plea and determined that there was no justification for re-hearing the appeals, thus upholding the conviction decision.

Cause Title: Sheela v. Brahamjit & Ors.

Click here to read/download Order