When High Court Reverses Acquittal and Convicts an Accused, It Must Also Decide the Sentence Itself

Case Name: Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) Etc.

Citation: 2026 INSC 559

Date of Judgment/Order: 26 May 2026

Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Held: The Supreme Court held that when an appellate court reverses an acquittal and convicts the accused for the first time, the appellate court itself must hear the accused on the question of sentence and then impose the sentence according to law. It cannot convict the accused and then send the matter back to the trial court only for sentencing. The Court clarified that this is required by Section 386(a) CrPC, corresponding to Section 427 BNSS, and is also consistent with the fair hearing requirement under Section 235(2) CrPC, corresponding to Section 258 BNSS. Sentencing is not a mechanical formality; it is a judicial function that must be performed by the very court which records the conviction after reversing the acquittal.

Summary: The appellant was tried for offences under Sections 376, 312 and 417 IPC and was acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The State and the victim challenged the acquittal before the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC. However, instead of fixing a date to hear 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 hear him on sentence and impose the proper sentence. The Supreme Court found this procedure legally incorrect. It explained that where a trial court convicts an accused, Section 235(2) CrPC requires that the accused be heard on sentence before sentence is passed. Similarly, where the appellate court convicts the accused for the first time after reversing an acquittal, Section 386(a) CrPC requires the appellate court to pass sentence itself. The appellate court cannot transfer that sentencing duty to the trial court.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals and set aside only that portion of paragraph 108 of the High Court judgment by which the High Court had directed the Trial Judge to pronounce and impose sentence. The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the conviction at this stage, holding that such challenge would be premature before sentence is imposed. The matter was remitted to the High Court, and CRA (DB)/6/2024 and CRA (DB)/4/2024 were restored to the file of the High Court for the limited purpose of fixing a date, hearing the convict on sentence, and thereafter imposing an appropriate sentence in accordance with law. The Court clarified that after sentence is imposed, the appellant would be free to challenge both 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 Chief Justice for appropriate action.