NEWS18| Top Court reminds Rajasthan HC of 'Judicial discipline', says is should not make comment on merits when conviction is specifically confirmed by it
Top Court made these observations while expunging a few " unwarranted statements" made by the High Court while considering a case that was remitted to it by the Supreme Court in the first place.
The Supreme Court recently schooled the Rajasthan High Court of Judicial Discipline, while setting aside a few observations made by it, in hearing a matter on sentencing.
"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", observed a bench of Justices MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat.
These observations came to be made by the Top Court while hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, challenging an order of the High Court, by which, on remanding the matter by this court, the division bench of the High Court had commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment.
The state was also aggrieved of the observations made by the High Court in paragraph 42 in the impugned judgment and order wherein the High Court said that on the investigation and that when the Supreme Court passed the order certain aspects were not brought to its notice and no assistance was provided to the accused to prefer an appeal before the Supreme Court.
In the impugned judgment and order, the High Court had 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 offences.
"...we are of the opinion 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...", the Top Court observed.
Thus, while noting that even Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan, appearing on behalf of the accused in the present case had also fairly
conceded and stated that the observations made in paragraph 42 were absolutely unwarranted and unsustainable. the division bench ordered to set aside the said observations.
"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 with the same, more particularly, when the High Court after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances has commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment...", the bench further held.
Case Title: The State of Rajasthan vs. Komal Lodha