The State Of Rajasthan vs Komal Lodha

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2239 ­2240 OF 2022 (@ SLP(Crl) NOs. 10707­10708 OF 2022)

The State of Rajasthan ...Appellant(S)

Versus

Komal Lodha ...Respondent(S)

ORDER

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

Signature Not Verified aggrieved of the observations made by the High Court in Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.01.13 16:29:06 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, 2022.

6