Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 211 crpc in The State Of Bihar vs Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ ... on 23 March, 2022Matching Fragments
11. Sections 236 and 211(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') are the guiding Sections in this behalf.
12. From a bare reading of Section 236 Cr.P.C., it is evident that in order to sentence the accused to an enhanced punishment under Section 236, it is imperative that a charge should have been framed under Section 211(7) of the Cr.P.C.
13. Further, from a bare reading of Section 211(7) Cr.P.C., it would be evident that the accused is to be charged with the previous conviction at the same stage when he is charged with the subsequent offence. If at the end of the trial, the accused is found guilty for the subsequent offence, he would be tried on the charge of previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence. It would also indicate that if there is omission in the framing of charge at the initial stage, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed.
legation that at the time when the accused committed the of-
fence, he had been previously convicted of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code would not satisfy the requirements of Section 211(7) of the Cr.P.C. The Court held that where the previous conviction did not form part of the charge, the en-
hanced sentence ought to be set aside and the Sessions Judge must be required to reopen the trial on that charge giving the ac-
29. Thus, the effect of Section 298 Cr.P.C. is that together with the proof of previous conviction evidence is also required to be adduced as to the identity of the accused person with the person so convicted.
30. In the light of the requirements of framing charge as required under Section 211(7) of the Cr.P.C. and the requirements of leading evidence in case where previous conviction is denied by the accused in terms of Section 236 of the Cr.P.C., a question arises before this Court as to whether the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the convict Lamboo Sharma in the Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2016 can be confirmed by this Court even if the fact about the previous conviction was not mentioned in the charge at initial stage and was also not added afterwards at any stage before awarding the sentence. The answer would be clearly in the negative. The best course in such case would be to set aside the sentence awarded against convict Lamboo Sharma by the Trial Court and remand the reference made by the Trial Court to this Court under Patna High Court D. REF. No.3 of 2019 dt.23-03-2022 Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence, for pass- ing a fresh sentence after following the procedure as laid down under Sections 211(7) and 236 of the Cr.P.C.
31. It is made clear that the Trial Court would be at liberty to frame charge of previous conviction against the convict Lamboo Sharma under Section 211(7) of the Cr.P.C. and, if such, charge is framed, it has to follow the procedure laid down in Section 236 of the Cr.P.C. before passing a fresh sentence.
32. With the aforestated views of mine, I reiterate my agreement with the judgment of Brother Arvind Srivastava, J.