Supreme Court Dismissed Appeal Against Conviction and Death Sentence in Murder Case Under Section 302/34 IPC. High Court's Certificate Under Article 134(1)(c) Was Held Incompetent as It Did Not Involve a Substantial Question of Law; Third Judge's Decision Under Section 429 CrPC Was Held Proper.

Criminal appeal by certificate against conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Appellants sought quashing of conviction and sentences, or in the alternative reduction of death sentence.

High Court granted certificate under Article 134(1)(c) on the ground that the third judge omitted to discuss the genuineness of the first information report.

Sessions Judge, Moradabad convicted appellants; High Court Division Bench differed; third judge dismissed appeal; certificate granted by High Court.

Whether the certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) was competent when it involved only questions of fact and not a substantial question of law. Whether Section 429 CrPC requires the third judge to give detailed reasons when agreeing with one judge on a point of difference. Whether death sentence should be reduced when two judges of the Division Bench differed on the question of sentence.

Appellants argued that the certificate was properly granted because the third judge failed to discuss the genuineness of the first information report; they also urged reconsideration of earlier Supreme Court decisions limiting the High Court's power to grant certificate under Article 134(1)(c), and sought reduction of death sentence. State contended that the certificate was incompetent because it involved only questions of fact and did not raise a substantial question of law; relied on Haripada Dey, Nar Singh, Sunder Singh and Khushalrai.

Under Section 429 CrPC, the third judge is completely free to decide what points to hear and how to resolve the difference; he may simply agree with one judge without detailed discussion. A certificate under Article 134(1)(c) requires a substantial question of law or principle, not mere appreciation of evidence; the High Court should be slow to certify and must not overlook the availability of special leave. Difference of opinion on sentence does not automatically warrant a lesser sentence; each case must be decided on its own facts.

The section contemplates that it is for third Judge to decide on what points he shall hear arguments, if any, and that postulates that he is completely free in resolving the difference as he thinks fit. Only a case involving something more than mere appreciation of evidence is contemplated by the Constitution of the grant of a certificate. The High Court should be slow to certify cases. The High Court should not overlook that there is a further remedy by way of special leave which may be invoked in cases where the certificate is refused. That whenever two Judges in appeal differ on the question of sentence, death sentence should not be imposed without compelling reasons cannot be raised to the pedestal of a rule.

Sessions Judge, Moradabad convicted and sentenced appellants under Section 302/34 IPC. High Court appeal heard by Division Bench (Mathur J and Gyanendra Kumar J); they differed. Third Judge (Takru J) dismissed appeal agreeing with Mathur J. Application for certificate was decided by Division Bench again differing; Broome J agreed to grant certificate. In Supreme Court, State raised preliminary objection to competency of certificate; matter referred to Constitution Bench.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: Section 429
• Constitution of India: Article 134(1)(c)
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, Section 34