LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-25

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. SHANKAR HALDHAR

Decided On November 14, 2019
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Appellant
V/S
Shankar Haldhar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crref No. 2 of 2017 is a reference under Section 366 of the CrPC for confirmation of death sentence awarded to accused Shankar Haldhar, who has been found guilty of committing offence under Section 302 (thrice) of the IPC with sentence of Death Sentence and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one year, as also under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act with sentence of RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 4 months.

(2.) Challenging the conviction and sentence, as afore-stated, the accused has preferred CRA No. 1963 of 2017. Both the matters were heard by the Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Agrawal and reserved for judgment on 29.6.2018. The judgment was written by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Agrawal maintaining conviction for both the offences and death sentence as well. When the judgment was placed for consideration before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker, he agreed with the conviction part but differed on sentence part and proceeded to write his own judgment dealing only with the sentence part. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker eventually maintained conviction for both the offences but converted death sentence under Section 302 to life imprisonment till the end of his life without remission. The Hon'ble Judges thereafter directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on administrative side as required under Sections 370 and 392 of the CrPC for obtaining opinion of the third Judge in the matter. The matter has thus been referred to me by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for according opinion as required under Section 392 of the CrPC.

(3.) Before proceeding to deal with the matter, it would be appropriate to appreciate the scope and jurisdiction available to a Judge who is to deliver his opinion upon difference of opinion amongst the Judges of Court of Appeal.