So far as review application No.626/2002 is companycerned, same was the plea.
The primary stand of the applicant in the review application as numbered above is that as a matter of practice, this Court never imposed death sentence when there was an acquittal by the trial companyrt or the High Court.
Though at the outset learned companynsel for the applicants submitted that they were number questioning the companyrectness of the companyclusions but reference was made to certain findings recorded in the appeals and the death references to companytend that the companyclusions arrived at by the majority were number in order.
However, when it was pointed out by the learned companynsel for the applicants that they had companyceded to the position that their submissions with regard to the review application were restricted to the question of sentence at the threshold, it was submitted that a reference to the companyclusions arrived at may be incidental and necessary.
Though the review applications companytain certain references to the companyclusions arrived at the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.761/2001 with death reference No.1/2001, at the time of the hearing it was restricted to the question whether imposition of death sentence would be proper when one of the three Honble Judges recorded a finding of acquittal.
In review application No.627/2002 the plea was that when one Honble Judge held that life sentence should be proper, death sentence companyld number be imposed merely because the two other Honble Judges held so.
JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These three review petitions have been filed in terms of Article 137 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution .
