The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the Rajasthan High Court commenting on the merits of a case that was remanded to it for reconsideration of the sentence of a convict who was given the death penalty. (State of Rajasthan v. Komal Lodha).A Bench of Justices MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat observed that such conduct was not justified when the High Court only had to consider the aspect of sentencing, as to whether to impose the death penalty or not. The case had been remanded to the High Court by the Supreme Court on the limited point of sentence. "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," the order reads. .The State of Rajasthan had moved the top court against a May 11, 2022 High Court order that was passed after the apex court remanded the matter to it.In the same, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, on finding that the death-row prisoner was wrongly convicted, had directed the Jhalawar Superintendent of Police to reopen investigation into a case arising from the rape and murder of a seven-year-old. A Bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Anoop Kumar Dhand had commuted the death penalty of the convict to life sentence since only the aspect of sentence was before them.Nevertheless, the High Court had proceeded to direct a probe into two other persons whose DNA was obtained from the clothes of the deceased child. It had observed,“We with heavy heart and with hope that justice would be done to the accused, who has been sentenced to imprisonment till death for crime committed by two other persons, commute sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment.”The High Court had taken into account that the accused was not given an opportunity to explain his DNA report.Pertinently, the High Court was of the opinion that the two who had committed the crime shifted blame to the accused with the help of the police..The top court at the outset said that the paragraph in the judgment under challenge about the top court not being made aware of certain facts was 'absolutely unwarranted' and against judicial propriety.The said paragraph underscored that material facts regarding the age of the accused and the DNA evidence were not brought to the apex court’s attention, and that no assistance was provided to the appellant before the top court. The apex court made it clear that the same was not welcome, given the High Court's remit in the case. "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...the High Court is not right even factually in observing that this Court confirmed the conviction without hearing the side of the accused on merits."The concerned paragraph was accordingly ordered to be set aside and expunged from the record. The top court, however, did not interfere with the rest of the judgment under challenge. .Advocates Rahul Kumar, Kavita Bhardwaj, Vishesh Kumar, Shubham Sethi, and Pragati Neekhra appeared for the State. Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan with Advocates Sridevi Panikkar and Sivagnanam K appeared for the convict. .[Read order]
The Supreme Court on Friday took exception to the Rajasthan High Court commenting on the merits of a case that was remanded to it for reconsideration of the sentence of a convict who was given the death penalty. (State of Rajasthan v. Komal Lodha).A Bench of Justices MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat observed that such conduct was not justified when the High Court only had to consider the aspect of sentencing, as to whether to impose the death penalty or not. The case had been remanded to the High Court by the Supreme Court on the limited point of sentence. "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," the order reads. .The State of Rajasthan had moved the top court against a May 11, 2022 High Court order that was passed after the apex court remanded the matter to it.In the same, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, on finding that the death-row prisoner was wrongly convicted, had directed the Jhalawar Superintendent of Police to reopen investigation into a case arising from the rape and murder of a seven-year-old. A Bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Anoop Kumar Dhand had commuted the death penalty of the convict to life sentence since only the aspect of sentence was before them.Nevertheless, the High Court had proceeded to direct a probe into two other persons whose DNA was obtained from the clothes of the deceased child. It had observed,“We with heavy heart and with hope that justice would be done to the accused, who has been sentenced to imprisonment till death for crime committed by two other persons, commute sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment.”The High Court had taken into account that the accused was not given an opportunity to explain his DNA report.Pertinently, the High Court was of the opinion that the two who had committed the crime shifted blame to the accused with the help of the police..The top court at the outset said that the paragraph in the judgment under challenge about the top court not being made aware of certain facts was 'absolutely unwarranted' and against judicial propriety.The said paragraph underscored that material facts regarding the age of the accused and the DNA evidence were not brought to the apex court’s attention, and that no assistance was provided to the appellant before the top court. The apex court made it clear that the same was not welcome, given the High Court's remit in the case. "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...the High Court is not right even factually in observing that this Court confirmed the conviction without hearing the side of the accused on merits."The concerned paragraph was accordingly ordered to be set aside and expunged from the record. The top court, however, did not interfere with the rest of the judgment under challenge. .Advocates Rahul Kumar, Kavita Bhardwaj, Vishesh Kumar, Shubham Sethi, and Pragati Neekhra appeared for the State. Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan with Advocates Sridevi Panikkar and Sivagnanam K appeared for the convict. .[Read order]
