### Appellate Court reversing acquittal must itself hear and sentence the convict, not remand for sentencing.

The Appellant was tried for offences under Sections 376, 312, and 417 of the IPC and subsequently acquitted by the Sessions Judge on 24.04.2024.

On appeal by the State and the victim, the High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) reversed the acquittal, finding the Appellant guilty under Sections 376 and 312 IPC.

However, instead of sentencing the convict itself, the High Court directed the Appellant to surrender before the Trial Judge, who was instructed to take him into custody and impose the sentence after a hearing.

The Supreme Court issued notice to examine the legality of this specific procedure.

Whether an Appellate Court, upon reversing an order of acquittal and recording a conviction for the first time, can remit the matter to the Trial Court solely for the purpose of sentencing the accused.

Section 386(a) of the Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 427 of the BNSS), which empowers an Appellate Court to reverse an acquittal, find the accused guilty, and "pass sentence on him according to law".

Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. (equivalent to Section 258 BNSS), which mandates that a convict must be heard on the question of sentence to satisfy natural justice.

The power to sentence cannot be abdicated by the Appellate Court as held in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009).

The Appellate Court must provide a real and effective hearing on sentencing when recording a conviction for the first time, as per Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977).

The Court reasoned that Section 386(a) of the Cr.P.C. imposes a "bounden duty" on the Appellate Court to impose the sentence itself after reversing an acquittal.

Remitting the case to the Trial Court for sentencing is a procedure "unknown to law" and constitutes an abdication of judicial discretion.

While Section 235(2) mandates a hearing on the sentence, this requirement must be satisfied by the court recording the conviction. In cases where the conviction is recorded for the first time by a higher court, that court should adjourn the matter to a suitable date to hear the convict and then pass the sentence itself.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s direction for the Trial Judge to handle the sentencing was an incongruous procedure that necessitated correction.

The Court set aside the portion of the High Court's judgment directing the Appellant to surrender before the Trial Judge for sentencing and remitted the matter to the High Court with directions to restore the appeals and fix a date to hear the convict on the issue of sentence and impose the penalty in accordance with law.