Harshad Gupta vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to deny the appellant's request for re-opening his conviction under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The Court clarified that the successor Presiding Officer is not required to re-hear the conviction but must hear the accused on the quantum of sentence as per Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the judgment of conviction and the sentencing are distinct phases, affirming the legal principle that the accused has a right to be heard on sentencing after conviction.