Mukesh Kumar Yadavv.State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) & Anr

Legal Analysis: Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) & Anr

Citation: 2026 INSC 559
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date of Decision: May 26, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8660-61 of 2026 against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair).

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant was tried for offences under Sections 376, 312 and 417 IPC. The Sessions Judge acquitted him. On appeal by the State and the victim, the High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC, but instead of hearing him on sentence and imposing sentence itself, directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial Judge and directed the Trial Judge to pronounce and impose the sentence after hearing the appellant. The Supreme Court held that this procedure was erroneous. An appellate court which reverses an acquittal and convicts the accused for the first time must itself hear the accused on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) CrPC (read with Section 386(a) CrPC) and impose sentence. It cannot relegate the matter to the trial court only for the purpose of sentencing. The Court set aside that part of the High Court’s order, restored the appeals to the file of the High Court, and directed the High Court to hear the convict on sentence and impose appropriate sentence.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

• Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) & Anr.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 559

• Criminal Appeal Nos.: 2863-2864 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8660-61 of 2026)

• Bench: Division Bench (Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi)

• Date of Decision: May 26, 2026

• Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 23.04.2026 of the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in CRA (DB)/6/2024 and CRA (DB)/4/2024.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 235 (judgment of acquittal or conviction – sub-section (2) mandates hearing the accused on sentence before passing sentence), Section 386 (powers of appellate court – clause (a) empowers appellate court to find accused guilty and pass sentence), Section 360 (release on probation – not applicable).

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 258 (corresponding to Section 235 CrPC), Section 427 (corresponding to Section 386 CrPC).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5 – Explained that Section 235(2) CrPC satisfies the rule of natural justice; the court must hear the accused on sentence; the provision is salutary and must be strictly followed.

• Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 68 – If the convicting court omits to hear the accused on sentence, the higher court can remedy the breach by giving a hearing on sentence, and where conviction is recorded for the first time by a higher court, that court must hear the accused on sentence.

• Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 – An appellate court, after reversing an acquittal and convicting the accused, cannot remit the matter to the trial court for passing sentence; it is the bounden duty of the appellate court to impose appropriate sentence.

• Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy (1989) 3 SCC 24 – The Supreme Court, after convicting accused for the first time, adjourned the matter to hear them on sentence as required by Section 235(2) CrPC.

• Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 10 SCC 692 – The Court held that after affirming conviction, it would hear the accused on sentence rather than remanding, following the principle in Dagdu.

3. Relevant Facts

• The appellant (Mukesh Kumar Yadav) was tried before the Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands for offences under Sections 376, 312 and 417 IPC.

• By judgment dated 24.04.2024, the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of all charges.

• The State and the victim (Ms. X) filed appeals before the Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) being CRA (DB)/4/2024 and CRA (DB)/6/2024.

• By judgment dated 23.04.2026, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the acquittal, and convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC.

• However, instead of hearing the appellant on sentence and imposing sentence itself, the High Court directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial Judge and directed the Trial Judge to take him into custody, hear him on sentence, and impose the proper sentence.

• The appellant challenged this procedure before the Supreme Court.

4. Issues

• Issue No. 1: Whether the High Court, after reversing an order of acquittal and convicting the accused for the first time, can direct the trial court to hear the accused on sentence and impose sentence, or whether the High Court itself must hear the accused on sentence and impose sentence.

• Issue No. 2: What is the correct procedure under Section 235(2) CrPC read with Section 386(a) CrPC when an appellate court convicts an accused in an appeal against acquittal.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Section 235(2) CrPC mandates that the court which convicts the accused must hear him on sentence before passing sentence (Paras 9-10).
The Court quoted Allauddin Mian to emphasize that the requirement of hearing the accused on sentence is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that an accused, on being found guilty, should be asked if he has anything to say on the question of sentence. This provision is salutary and must be strictly followed. (Paras 9-10)

B. An appellate court convicting for the first time in an appeal against acquittal must itself hear the accused on sentence and impose sentence (Paras 12-18).
The Court examined Section 386(a) CrPC, which provides that in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the appellate court may “find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law.” Relying on Kumar Exports, the Court held that the appellate court cannot abdicate its judicial function of imposing sentence by remitting the matter to the trial court. After finding the accused guilty, it is the bounden duty of the appellate court to impose appropriate sentence. (Paras 12-14)

C. The High Court erred in directing the trial court to impose sentence (Para 20).
The Court held that the following portion of the High Court’s judgment was erroneous: “The convict Mukesh is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Judge … and on his surrender the learned trial judge shall take him into custody and shall pronounce and impose the proper sentence … after hearing on the point of sentence.” This direction was set aside. (Para 20)

D. The matter is remitted to the High Court for hearing on sentence (Paras 21-22).
The Supreme Court restored the appeals (CRA (DB)/6/2024 and CRA (DB)/4/2024) to the file of the High Court. The High Court was directed to fix a date for hearing the convict on the issue of sentence, hear him, and impose an appropriate sentence in accordance with law. After sentence is imposed, the appellant would be at liberty to challenge the conviction and sentence afresh. (Paras 21-22)

E. The judgment in Dagdu and Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar applied (Paras 11, 18).
The Court noted that in Dagdu, it was held that where the convicting court omits to hear on sentence, the higher court can remedy the breach. In Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar, the Supreme Court itself heard the accused on sentence after affirming conviction. The principle applies equally to High Courts. (Paras 11, 18)

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• First, an appellate court that reverses an acquittal and convicts the accused cannot delegate the sentencing function to the trial court. Under Section 386(a) CrPC, the appellate court must itself “pass sentence on him according to law.” Remitting the matter to the trial court only for sentencing is impermissible.

• Second, the requirement of hearing the accused on sentence under Section 235(2) CrPC applies with full force to an appellate court that records a conviction for the first time. The appellate court must give the accused an opportunity to be heard on sentence and must then impose sentence.

• Third, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the procedure that when a higher court convicts an accused (whether trial court acquitted), it should adjourn the matter to a suitable date, hear the accused on sentence, and then impose sentence. This avoids the need for a remand and ensures compliance with natural justice.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis of Concepts

The Court first noted the incongruity in the procedure adopted by the High Court. It observed that while the High Court had correctly reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, it had not completed the judicial process. Instead of hearing the appellant on sentence, it directed the trial court to do so.

The Court then traced the statutory scheme under Section 235 CrPC, which is mandatory in nature. It explained that sub-section (2) separates the adjudication of guilt from the determination of sentence, giving the accused an opportunity to place mitigating circumstances before the court. This is a safeguard against arbitrary sentencing.

Next, the Court examined Section 386(a) CrPC. It noted that the provision gives the appellate court three options in an appeal against acquittal: (i) reverse the acquittal and direct further inquiry, (ii) reverse and order a re-trial, or (iii) find the accused guilty and pass sentence. The third option – finding guilty and passing sentence – was what the High Court should have done. Instead, the High Court effectively created a fourth option not contemplated by law: finding guilty but delegating the sentencing to the trial court.

The Court then reviewed the precedents. In Allauddin Mian, the Court had emphasized the importance of hearing on sentence. In Dagdu, the Court clarified that the failure to hear on sentence can be remedied by the higher court itself. In Kumar Exports, this Court had explicitly disapproved of the procedure where the High Court, after convicting, remits the matter to the Magistrate for sentence. The Court held that the same principle applies when the appellate court convicts in an appeal against acquittal.

Finally, the Court set aside the offending portion of the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for hearing on sentence. It also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court for placing before the Chief Justice for appropriate action (likely to ensure compliance with correct procedure).

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment clarifies an important procedural aspect that often causes confusion. It correctly holds that the appellate court which reverses an acquittal and convicts the accused must itself complete the sentencing process. This avoids the absurd situation where the appellate court pronounces guilt but the sentence is imposed by a trial court that had already expressed its view through an acquittal. The judgment also reaffirms the mandatory nature of Section 235(2) CrPC and the principle from Kumar Exports. The decision to remit the matter to the High Court (rather than imposing sentence itself) is appropriate because the High Court is the proper forum to exercise its original appellate sentencing discretion.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not discuss whether the High Court could have, in the alternative, asked the parties to file written submissions on sentence and then passed sentence without a further oral hearing. However, the direction to restore the appeals to the file of the High Court implies that the High Court will now conduct a proper hearing. Another concern is that the judgment does not explicitly state that the High Court’s conviction (on merits) is upheld; it only sets aside the sentencing procedure. However, the restoration of appeals means the High Court will now complete the process; the merits of conviction are not reopened.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all cases where an appellate court (including the High Court) reverses an acquittal and convicts the accused. It will prevent appellate courts from passing “half‑judgments” that find guilt but leave sentencing to the trial court. It also ensures that the accused’s right to be heard on sentence is respected by the same court that found him guilty.

9. Final Outcome

• The appeals were partly allowed.

• The following portion of para 108 of the High Court’s judgment was set aside: the direction that the appellant surrender before the Trial Judge and that the Trial Judge shall pronounce and impose sentence.

• The appeals (CRA (DB)/6/2024 and CRA (DB)/4/2024) were restored to the file of the Calcutta High Court.

• The High Court was directed to fix a date for hearing the convict on the question of sentence, hear him, and impose an appropriate sentence in accordance with law.

• After the imposition of sentence, the appellant would be at liberty to challenge the conviction and sentence afresh.

• A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court for placing before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate action.

10. Practical Application

First, an appellate court (including the High Court) that reverses an acquittal and convicts an accused must itself hear the accused on sentence and impose sentence. It cannot direct the trial court to impose sentence. Any such direction is illegal and will be set aside.

Second, if a higher court has convicted an accused for the first time (either in an appeal against acquittal or in revision), the accused can insist on being heard on sentence by that same court. The court cannot delegate the sentencing function.

Third, this judgment can be used by an accused to challenge a conviction where the appellate court has found guilt but remitted the matter for sentence. The proper remedy is to have the appellate court itself hear and decide the sentence.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Duty to hear on sentence – Para 10 quoting Allauddin Mian):
“The requirement of hearing the accused is intended to satisfy the rule of natural justice. It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the accused who was hitherto concentrating on the prosecution evidence on the question of guilt should, on being found guilty, be asked if he has anything to say or any evidence to tender on the question of sentence.”

Line 2 (Appellate court cannot delegate sentencing – Para 14 quoting Kumar Exports):
“Having found the appellant guilty … it was the bounden duty of the High Court to impose appropriate sentence commensurate with the facts of the case. Therefore, we do not approve or accept the procedure adopted by the High Court.”

Line 3 (Section 386(a) CrPC – Para 13):
“It can be seen from Section 386(a), Cr.P.C., that where in an appeal from an order of acquittal, the court hearing the appeal finds the accused guilty it is required to pass a sentence on him according to law.”

Line 4 (Remand not mandatory – Para 18 quoting Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar):
“The fact that the Supreme Court in Santa Singh remanded the matter to the Sessions Court does not spell out the ratio of the judgment to be that in every such case there has to be a remand but the remand is an exception, not the rule.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For an accused (appellant) in a case where the High Court reverses acquittal and convicts but delegates sentencing to trial court:

• Immediately file an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the procedure. Cite this judgment to argue that the High Court has abdicated its judicial function. The Supreme Court will set aside the procedural direction and remit the matter to the High Court for proper sentencing.

For the State or victim (respondent) in such a case:

• If the High Court has wrongly delegated sentencing, the State can also seek correction, but the better course is to request the High Court itself to hear the sentence. If the High Court refuses, the State can approach the Supreme Court.

For a High Court judge dealing with an appeal against acquittal:

• When reversing an acquittal and convicting the accused, do not direct the trial court to impose sentence. Instead, after pronouncing the judgment of conviction, adjourn the matter to a suitable date, call upon the accused (or his counsel) to make submissions on sentence, and then pass the sentence in the same judgment or a separate order. This ensures compliance with Section 235(2) CrPC and Section 386(a) CrPC.

For a lawyer drafting a judgment of conviction in an appeal against acquittal:

• Include a specific paragraph stating that “the accused is convicted under Section …” and then add “List the matter for hearing on sentence on …” After hearing the parties, pass the sentence order. Do not direct the trial court to impose sentence.