After laying down the procedure about the pronouncement of the judgment, subsection (5) of Section 353 states that if the accused is in the custody, he shall be brought to the Court to hear the judgment pronounced. Under subsection (6), if the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the Court to attend to hear the judgment pronounced, except where his personal attendance during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine only or he is acquitted.
24 From the above provisions it can be safely presumed that the presence of the accused is insisted during the trial for more than one reason though the provisions are made for dispensing with their personal attendance for the reasons enumerated under Section 205 or 317, Cr.P.C. The reasons for insisting for their personal attendance are that during the trial, the presiding officer is expected to record the evidence in the presence of the accused in the language known to him and the accused has to follow the evidence that is being let in by the prosecution against his interests and give suitable instructions to his counsel to disprove the case of the prosecution as he will be the appropriate person who knows the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against him. Likewise the presence of the accused is insisted at the time of pronouncement of the judgment and in the event of his being convicted he has to be heard on the sentence to be imposed. Hence, there is every justification in insisting for the appearance of the accused during the trial.
25 However, the judgment that the learned Magistrate may pronounce in the absence of the accused by itself will not vitiate the judgment. Sub section (7) of Section 353 of the Cr.P.C. clearly lays down that no judgment delivered by any criminal court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party.
26 The First question is answered accordingly.
R/SCR.A/9112/2016 Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment