Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Vijay Bishnoi held that an appellate court reversing an acquittal must itself hear the accused on sentence and impose punishment, instead of remanding the matter to the trial court solely for sentencing.
The Supreme Court has ruled that an appellate court cannot send a case back to a trial court only for sentencing after reversing an acquittal and convicting an accused. Instead, the appellate court must hear the accused on the question of sentence and impose punishment itself.
A Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered the judgment on May 26, 2026, in Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands).
Background of the Case
Mukesh Kumar Yadav faced trial before the Sessions Judge in Port Blair for offences under Sections 376, 312, and 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On April 24, 2024, the Sessions Court acquitted him of all charges. The State and the victim, identified in the judgment as “Ms. X,” challenged the acquittal before the Calcutta High Court.
The High Court allowed the appeals. It held that the victim had consented to the relationship because of a false promise of marriage. The court also found evidence that the accused persuaded her to terminate her pregnancy while knowing he would not marry her.
As a result, the High Court convicted Yadav under Sections 376 and 312 IPC. It then directed the trial court to hear him on sentencing and impose punishment.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The main question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could send the matter back to the trial court only for sentencing after recording a conviction.
When the matter came up on May 12, 2026, the Supreme Court specifically issued notice to examine the legality of this procedure.
Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim appeared for the appellant. Advocate Kunal Chatterji represented the victim, while Mukesh Kumar Verma appeared for the State.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Bench examined Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its equivalent provision under Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Court noted that a convicted person has a legal right to be heard on the question of sentence before punishment is imposed.
The judges relied on the decision in Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar (1989). That judgment stated that a sentencing hearing is an important safeguard and forms part of the principles of natural justice.
The Court also referred to Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977). In that case, the Supreme Court held that a higher court can cure a sentencing defect by hearing the accused itself rather than sending the matter back.
Powers of an Appellate Court
The Bench examined Section 386(a) CrPC, which corresponds to Section 427 BNSS.
The provision allows an appellate court to reverse an acquittal, convict an accused, and pass sentence according to law.
The Court also relied on Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009). In that judgment, the Supreme Court disapproved of a similar attempt to leave sentencing to a lower court after reversing an acquittal.
The Bench further referred to earlier decisions, including Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy and Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar v. State of Maharashtra. In both cases, the Supreme Court itself heard the accused on sentence after recording conviction.
Key Ruling
Summarising the legal position, the Supreme Court held that a court convicting an accused for the first time must hear the accused on the issue of sentence.
The Bench clarified that when an appellate court reverses an acquittal and records a conviction, it must also conduct the sentencing hearing and impose the sentence. It cannot transfer that responsibility to the trial court.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the part of the High Court’s judgment that directed the appellant to surrender before the trial court for sentencing.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the conviction at this stage.
Instead, it restored the criminal appeals to the file of the Calcutta High Court. The High Court must now fix a date, hear the convict on the issue of sentence, and impose an appropriate punishment in accordance with law.
The Court also clarified that after sentencing, the appellant may challenge both the conviction and sentence through appropriate legal proceedings.
In addition, the Bench directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the Calcutta High Court for further action.
