📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This judgment explains an important rule about how courts must decide whether to impose the death penalty in criminal cases. Under Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, after convicting an accused, the court must give them a genuine opportunity to be heard on what punishment should follow. The judgment clarifies that this is not a mere formality - courts must actively try to bring out any facts, circumstances, or evidence relevant to sentencing, even if the accused stays silent or simply denies guilt. This hearing requirement works together with Section 354(3), which requires courts to record "special reasons" when awarding a death sentence instead of a lesser punishment.
The case involved Ajay Pandit, a dentist who deceived people with promises of sending them abroad for better opportunities; some victims were murdered and others barely escaped. The trial court had given him a life sentence, but the matter came up for possible enhancement to death. The court found that the lower courts had merely recorded the accused's bare denial without making any real effort to explore factors that might weigh against a death sentence.
The ruling mat
یہ فیصلہ اس اہم اصول کی وضاحت کرتا ہے کہ عدالتوں کو فوجداری مقدمات میں سزائے موت دینے کا فیصلہ کرتے وقت کس طریقہ کار کو اپنانا چاہیے۔ ضابطہ فوجداری کی دفعہ 235(2) کے تحت، ملزم کو مجرم قرار دیے جانے کے بعد عدالت پر لازم ہے کہ وہ اسے اس بات پر حقیقی معنوں میں سنوائی کا موقع دے کہ کون سی سزا دی جانی چاہیے۔ فیصلے میں واضح کیا گیا ہے کہ یہ محض ایک رسمی کارروائی نہیں ہے، بلکہ عدالتوں کو چاہیے کہ وہ سزا سے متعلق کسی بھی حقیقت، حالات یا شہادت کو سامنے لانے کی فعال کوشش کریں، چاہے ملزم خاموش رہے یا محض الزام سے انکار کرے۔ سنوائی کی یہ شرط دفعہ 354(3) کے ساتھ مل کر کام کرتی ہے، جس کے تحت عدالتوں کو لازم ہے کہ جب وہ کم سزا کے بجائے سزائے موت سنائیں تو اس کے لیے "خصوصی وجوہات" تحریر کریں۔
یہ مقدمہ اجے پنڈت نامی ایک دندان ساز سے متعلق تھا، جس نے لوگوں کو بیرون ملک بہت
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
Supreme Court: According to sub-section (2) of Section 235 of CrPC the opportunity of hearing has to be given to the accused on the question of sentence. It means full opportunity has to be given to the accused to produce adequate materials before the court and if found necessary the court may also give an opportunity to lead evidence. Here evidence means the evidence which has some relevance on t he question of sentence and not on conviction. Where capital punishment has to be awarded the court has to make conscious effort to elicit relevant information, which has some bearing in awarding a proper and adequate sentence. Awarding death sentence is always an exception, only in rarest of rare cases. The Court reiterated that the object of hearing under Section 235(2) CrPC being intrinsically and inherently connected with the sentencing procedure, the provisions of Section 354(3) CrPC which calls for recording of special reason for awarding death sentence, must be read conjointly. The Court held that special reasons can only be validly recorded if an effective opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 235(2) CrPC is genuinely extended and is allowed to be exercised by the accused who stands convicted and is awaiting the sentence. Herein the relevant facts of the case is that the accused Ajay Pandit, a dentist by profession, lured many person on the pretext of sending them to America for better prospects in life. Several persons fell in his net. Some of them were found murdered and few others narrowly escaped from the clutches of death. On these facts the Court observed that the High Court has mechanically recorded what the accused has said and no attempt has been made to elicit any information or particulars from the accused or the prosecution which are relevant for awarding a proper sentence. The accused was informed by the court of the nature of the show-cause-notice i.e. whether the life sentence awarded by the trial court be not enhanced to death penalty. The accused said nothing more than this that he is not involved in the case. He is not guilty. But no genuine effort has been made by the court to elicit any information either from the accused or the prosecution as to whether any circumstance exists which might influence the court to avoid and not to award death sentence. Awarding death sentence is an exception, not the rule, and only in rarest of rare cases, the court could award death sentence. The state of mind of a person awaiting death sentence and the state of mind of a person who has been awarded life sentence may not be the same mentally and psychologically. Therefore, the court has got a duty and obligation to elicit relevant facts even if the accused has kept totally silent in such situations. (Ajay Pandit v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 864 of 2006, decided on 17-7-2012)