KUNAL MAJUMDAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2012] 8 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 12-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 706 
KUNAL MAJUMDAR 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 
[DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 366(1) - Death 
C reference - Manner in which to be dealt with - Held: High 
Court is bound to examine the death reference with particular 
reference to ss. 367 and 371 Cr.P.C. - High Court cannot 
short-circuit the process of reference by merely relying upon 
any concession made by the counsel for the convict or that 
D of the State - In the instant case, the High Court dealt with 
the reference in a very casual and callous manner and did 
not exercise its jurisdiction vested in it u/s. 36fi(1) - Matter 
remitted to High Court to decide the reference in the manner 
it ought to have been decided. 
E 
The appellant-accused was convicted by trial court 
for the offences ulss.302 and 3761511 and was sentenced 
to death with fine for the offence uls. 302 IPC and was 
sentenced to 7 years RI with fine for the offences ulss. 
3761511 IPC. The case was referred uls. 366 Cr.P .C. for 
F confirmation of death sentence. 
The High Court while dealing with the reference, 
alongwith the appeal, confirmed the conviction but 
altered the death sentence to life imprisonment uls. 302 
G IPC while maintaining the sentence ulss. 3761511 IPC. 
H 
Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to 
High Court, the Court 
706 
KUNAL MAJUMDAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
707 
i 
HELD: 1. In a case for consideration for confirmation 
A 
of death sentence under Section 366 (1) Cr.P.C., the High 
Court is bound to examine the Reference with particular 
reference to the provisions contained in Sections 367 to 
371 Cr.P.C. In a Reference made u/s. 366 (1) Cr.P.C., there 
is no question of the High Court short-circuiting the 
B 
process of Reference by merely relying upon any 
concession made by the counsel for the convict or 
counsel for the State. A duty is cast upon the High Court 
to examine the nature and the manner in which the 
offence was committed, the mens rea if any, of the culprit, c 
the plight of the victim as noted by the trial Court, the 
diabolic manner in which the offence was alleged to have 
been performed, the ill-effects it had on the victim as well 
as the society at large, the mindset of the culprit vis-a-vis 
the public interest, the conduct of the convict immediately 
0 
after the commission of the offence and thereafter, the 
past history of the culprit, the magnitude of the crime and 
also the consequences it had on the dependants or the 
custodians of the victim. There should be very wide range 
of consideration to be made by the High Court dealing 
with the Reference in order to ensure that the ultimate 
E 
outcome of the Reference would instill confidence in the 
minds of peace loving citizens and also achieve the 
object of acting as a deterrent for others from indulging 
in such crimes. [Paras 15 and 17] [715-F; 717-C-F] 
2. In the impugned order, the Division Bench of the 
High Court merely recorded to the effect that the counsel 
for the appellant pleaded for sympathy to commute the 
death sentence into one for life for the offence falling u/ 
F 
s. 302 IPC while praying for maintaining the sentence G 
imposed for the offence u/ss. 376/511 IPC and that there 
was no opposition from the Public Prosecutor. The 
Division Bench of the High Court did not bother to 
exercise its jurisdiction vested in it u/s. 366(1) Cr.P.C. rt 
H 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 
A w. Sections 368 to 370 and 392, Cr.P.C. in letter and spirit 
and thereby, shirked its responsibility while deciding the 
Reference in the manner it ought to have been otherwise 
decided under Cr.P.C. [Para 16] [716-E-H; 717-A-B] 
B 
3. If the matter is considered on merits by this Court, 
it would only result in dealing with the issue in such a 
manner which in the normal course should have been 
considered and examined by the Division Bench of High 
Court while dealing with the Reference u/s. 366 (1) Cr.P.C. 
Since the said exercise ought to have been carried out 
C by the Division Bench while dealing with a Reference 
along with the appeal preferred by the appellant, in fitness 
of things the, Division Bench is allowed to carry out that 
exercise as ordained upon it. Therefore, the judgment 
impugned in this appeal is set aside and the matter is 
D remitted back to the High Court for deciding the 
Ref

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.