What did the Supreme Court say about Section 235(2) CrPC in Santa Singh?

The Court said hearing on sentence after conviction is mandatory. Skipping it is not a minor irregularity—it is an illegality that vitiates the sentence.

Can non-compliance be cured under Section 465 CrPC?

No. Non-compliance with Section 235(2) bypasses an essential trial stage, so Section 465 cannot cure it.

What was the final direction in Santa Singh?

The case was remanded to the trial court to give the accused and prosecution a proper chance to present materials on sentence.

What factors should courts consider at sentencing?

Nature of the offence, aggravating and mitigating factors, prior record, age, mental and emotional state, social background, and scope for rehabilitation.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

201

Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976) — Section 235(2) CrPC sentencing hearing rule | The Law Easy

Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190

Supreme Court of India 1976 Bench: 3 Judges (1976) 4 SCC 190 CrPC — Sentencing 4 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi

India

Published: 02 Nov 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 235(2) CrPC, sentencing hearing, illegality, death penalty, remand

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 465 CrPC, mitigation, aggravation, Supreme Court 1976

Slug: santa-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-1976-4-scc-190

```

Quick Summary

In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court made one thing crystal clear: after a person is found guilty, the court must hear them on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) CrPC. Skipping this step is not a small slip. It is an illegality that breaks the trial’s proper path. The Court sent the matter back to the trial court to hold a full hearing on sentence.

Issues

Is non-compliance with Section 235(2) CrPC a curable irregularity under Section 465, or an illegality that vitiates the sentence?

Rules

Section 235(2) CrPC: after conviction, the accused must get a fair chance to be heard on sentence; only then can the court decide the punishment.

Hearing can include oral submissions and relevant materials from both sides (mitigating and aggravating factors). If disputed, evidence may be taken—but not to delay proceedings.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline illustration for the Santa Singh case

Trial: Appellant tried for double murder before Sessions Judge, Ludhiana; represented by counsel.

Adjournments: Judgment dates shifted from 13 Feb to 20 Feb to 26 Feb 1975.

Conviction & Sentence: On 26 Feb 1975, in counsel’s absence, court delivered conviction under IPC 302 and in the same breath awarded death sentence.

No Hearing on Sentence: The court did not give the accused a chance to speak or produce materials on sentence as required by Section 235(2).

High Court: Conviction and death sentence confirmed.

Supreme Court: Appeal limited to sentence; challenge based on breach of Section 235(2) CrPC.

Arguments

Appellant

Skipping Section 235(2) is a breach of a mandatory step; sentence cannot stand.
Sentencing must consider mitigating material; the accused was denied that chance.

Respondent

Treated as an irregularity curable under Section 465 CrPC.
Outcome allegedly unaffected by the omission.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that Section 235(2) is mandatory. Its non-compliance is not a curable irregularity under Section 465. It is an illegality that vitiates the sentence. The case was remanded to the trial court to conduct a proper hearing on sentence.

Ratio

Sentencing is a distinct and essential stage of a criminal trial.
The accused must be heard on punishment and may present materials on mitigation; prosecution may present aggravation.
Courts should weigh offence features with accused-specific factors: record, age, mental state, home life, employment, and prospects of rehabilitation.

Why It Matters

This case builds India’s sentencing due process. It protects fairness, especially in serious offences, by ensuring a real chance to present mitigating information before punishment is fixed.

Key Takeaways

Mandatory hearing after conviction; no “one-shot” conviction-and-sentence order.
Illegality, not irregularity—Section 465 cannot save the sentence.
Mitigation matters: rehabilitation, age, background, mental health must be considered.
Balanced approach: blend offence gravity with accused-specific factors.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: S-A-N-T-A — Sentence After Nailing (conviction) needs Talk by Accused.

Pause: Finish conviction first.
Hear: Let both sides present mitigation/aggravation.
Weigh: Decide sentence after balanced consideration.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Is skipping Section 235(2) curable or fatal?	Section 235(2) mandates a hearing on sentence post-conviction.	Trial court sentenced immediately; no hearing; mitigation not considered.	Illegality that vitiates sentence; remand for proper sentencing hearing.

Glossary

Mitigating Factors: Information that may reduce the severity of sentence (e.g., age, mental health, background).
Aggravating Factors: Circumstances that may increase punishment (e.g., brutality, prior record).
Section 235(2) CrPC: Provision requiring a hearing on sentence after conviction.
Section 465 CrPC: Curable irregularities—does not cover skipping a mandatory sentencing hearing.

Student FAQs

The sentence becomes invalid because an essential stage of trial was bypassed. The case should be sent back for a proper sentencing hearing.

Yes. Both sides can submit documents and evidence on mitigation or aggravation. If facts are disputed, the court may record evidence.

No. The principle applies to all convictions where sentence must be decided after hearing the accused under Section 235(2) CrPC.

```

Comment

Nothing for now