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
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