Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2239 2240 OF 2022
(@ SLP(Crl) NOs. 1070710708 OF 2022)
The State of Rajasthan ...Appellant(S)
Versus
Komal Lodha ...Respondent(S)
O R D E R
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment
and order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal
Death Reference No. 6/2019 connected with D.B. Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 374/2019, by which, on remanding the
matter by this Court, the Division Bench of the High Court
has commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, the
State has preferred the present appeals. The State is also
aggrieved of the observations made by the High Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.01.31
14:20:52 IST
Reason:
paragraph 42 in the impugned judgment and order.
1
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are
as under:
2.1 That the respondent – accused was convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The learned
Trial Court awarded the death penalty. However, the High
Court has commuted the death penalty to life
imprisonment mechanically and without considering the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances which were
required to be considered while considering the case of
death penalty. The matter was carried to this Court by the
State against commuting the death penalty to life
imprisonment.
2.2 That vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2002, this
Court after hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the
State as well as the accused set aside the order passed by
the High Court commuting the death penalty to life
imprisonment and remanded the matter to the High Court
to consider the question of sentence for the offence under
Section 302 IPC, namely, whether death penalty and/or
2
life sentence or any other appropriate sentence. That
thereafter, on remand after considering the aggravating
and mitigating circumstances, the High Court not only has
commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, but also
in paragraph 42 has made certain unwarranted
observations on the investigation and that when this Court
passed the order certain aspects were not brought to the
notice of this Court and no assistance was provided to the
accused – respondent herein to prefer an appeal before
this Court. In the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has also directed to investigate the matter afresh to
book certain other accused whose DNAs were obtained
from the leggings of the deceased for the offence of murder,
rape, sodomy and POCSO.
3. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State and Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent – accused and
having gone through the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court, more particularly, the
observations made in paragraph 42, we are of the opinion
3
that the observations made by the High Court in
paragraph 42 are absolutely unwarranted and against the
judicial discipline and propriety. When this Court earlier
confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence
under Section 302 IPC and that too after hearing learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused,
thereafter, it was not open for the High Court to make
comments upon the investigation and/or on merits of the
case.
4. The High Court also ought not to have made observations
in paragraph 42 that certain aspects were not brought to
the notice of this Court and no assistance was provided to
the accused to prefer an appeal before this Court and that
the conviction was upheld without hearing the side of the
accused – respondent herein. However, it is required to be
noted that when this Court passed the order remanding
the matter for sentence and confirmed the conviction, this
Court heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the accused. Therefore, the High Court is not
right even factually in observing that this Court confirmed
4
the conviction without hearing the side of the accused on
merits. Judicial discipline requires that once the
conviction was confirmed by this Court that too after
hearing the accused, the High Court should not have
thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case,
more particularly, when the conviction was specifically
confirmed by this Court and the matter was remitted to
the High Court only for the purpose of considering the
sentence, namely, whether death penalty and/or life
sentence or any other appropriate sentence. Even Shri
K.V. Viswanathan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the accused in the present case has also fairly
conceded and stated that the observations made in
paragraph 42 are absolutely unwarranted and are
unsustainable. Leaving the matter there, we set aside the
observations made by the High Court made in paragraph
42 of the impugned judgment and order.
5. Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court commuting the death penalty to life
imprisonment is concerned, we see no reason to interfere
5
with the same, more particularly, when the High Court
after considering the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances has commuted the death penalty to life
imprisonment.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above we
set aside and expunge paragraph 42 of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court. Rest of the
impugned judgment and order commuting the death
penalty to life imprisonment is not interfered with. Present
appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 13, 2023.
6