Sanatan Alias Sona Layek vs State on 13 June, 2005
20. After a due consideration of the materials on record, we find that the learned Sessions Judge while imposing higher sentence should have considered giving proper opportunity to the accused for effective hearing on the point of sentence, if necessary, after fixing another date eliciting to him the requirement of such hearing. It is a valuable right of the accused which cannot be denied for speedy trial. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1996 (Raghunath Dey v. State) decided on 20-8-2003 (reported in 2003 Cri LJ 4592). It was also noted that for such a purpose a case may be remanded to the trial Court for the limited purpose of hearing the accused before sentencing him as required under the law. But since this case is very old and the accused is in jail custody for a long period, we do not like to send the case back on remand. We also take the view that if the minimum sentence as indicated in Section 396 of I.P.C. is imposed, it will meet the ends of justice especially when there is no indication of previous conviction of the accused or his direct participation in the murder. So in allowing the appeal in part we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to R.I. for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- i.d. to suffer further R.I. for six months. The period of detention undergone as under trial prisoner be set off from the substantive sentence under Section 428, Cr. P.C. The trial Court is directed to issue modified Jail Warrant accordingly.