Chapter XVIII
Section 236 CrPC: Previous conviction
New Law Update (2024)
Section 256 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Sessions Court
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
In a case where a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of Sub-Section (7) of Section 211, and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Judge may, after he has convicted the said accused under Section 229 or Section 235, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon: Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Judge nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under Section 229 or Section 235.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 236 (Main Provision)
This part details the procedure for addressing a charge of previous conviction. It states that if an accused denies a previous conviction alleged under Section 211(7) CrPC, the Judge can only take evidence and record a finding on this alleged previous conviction after the accused has already been convicted of the current offence under Section 229 (plea of guilty) or Section 235 (judgment of conviction or acquittal).
Section 236 (Proviso)
The proviso acts as a crucial safeguard, explicitly prohibiting the judge from reading out the charge of previous conviction, asking the accused to plead to it, or allowing the prosecution to refer to it or adduce evidence on it, until the accused has been convicted of the current offence. This ensures that knowledge of a prior conviction does not prejudice the court during the trial of the primary charge.
Landmark Judgements
V.M. Mathew v. The State of Kerala (1970):
The Supreme Court clarified that for enhanced punishment based on a previous conviction, such conviction must be proved. This case highlights the procedural necessity of establishing the fact of a previous conviction before it can influence sentencing, aligning with the principles underlying Section 236 CrPC.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kokkiliagada Naganna (1987):
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of strictly adhering to procedural safeguards when considering previous convictions. It affirmed that a previous conviction must be properly proved or admitted by the accused for it to be taken into account for enhanced punishment, reinforcing the rationale behind Section 236 CrPC’s delayed introduction of such evidence.
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Shaikh (2018):
This case underscored that the purpose of Section 236 CrPC is to prevent prejudice to the accused during the trial of the substantive offence. The court emphasized that evidence of previous conviction is relevant only at the stage of sentencing for determining the quantum of punishment, and its introduction is strictly prohibited before the conviction for the current offence.