Gita Mittal, J.

1. By way of Death Sentence Reference No.2/2012, this court is required to consider the legality and validity of the judgment dated 17th March, 2012 whereby the respondents in Death Reference no.2/2012 have been found guilty for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as order of sentence dated 26th March, 2012 whereby they have all been sentenced to death penalty for commission of such offences as well as payment of fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in case of default, one month’s rigorous imprisonment each.

2. The respondents have assailed the said judgment and said order of sentence by way of the criminal appeals being Crl.A.No.472/2012, Zulfikar Ali v. State; Crl.A.No.473/2012, Mubin Fatima v. State; and Crl.A.No.474/2012, Gulbeg Ali v. State. Inasmuch as the three appeals and the death reference arise out of the same judgment based upon the same record and raise similar questions of law and fact, we are taking them together for consideration.

So far as reference to parties is concerned, for the purposes of convenience, we are referring to the convicts as the respondents in the present judgment.

Scope of consideration in a case of confirmation of sentence

3. The principles which would govern the consideration by us of the impugned judgment as well as the sentence of death imposed by the learned trial court on the respondents are well settled. We may usefully refer the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court placed by Ms. Ritu Gauba, learned APP before this court which is reported at (2012) 9 SCC 320, Kunal Majumdar v. State of Rajasthan wherein the Supreme Court noticed the applicable statutory provisions and laid down binding principles thus:-

“16. In a case for consideration for confirmation of death sentence Under Section 366 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure., the High Court is bound to examine the Reference with particular reference to the provisions contained in Sections 367 to 371 Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure., when Reference is submitted before the High Court, the High Court, if satisfied that a further enquiry should be made or additional evidence should be taken upon, any point bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the convict person, it can make such enquiry or take such evidence itself or direct it to be made or taken by the Court of Sessions. The ancillary powers as regards the presence of the accused in such circumstances have been provided under Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Section 367, Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Section 368, while dealing with the Reference Under Section 366, it inter alia provides for confirmation of the sentence or pass any other sentence warranted by law or may annul the conviction itself and in its place convict the accused for any other offence of which the Court of Sessions might have convicted the accused or order for a new trial on the same or an amended charge. It may also acquit the accused person. Under Section 370, when such Reference is heard by Bench of Judges and if they are divided in their opinion, the case should be decided in the manner provided Under Section 392 as per which the case should be laid before another Judge of that Court who should deliver his opinion and the judgment or order should follow that opinion. Here again, under the proviso to Section 392, it is stipulated that if one of the Judges constituting the Bench or where the appeal is laid before another Judge, either of them, if so required, direct for rehearing of the appeal for a decision to be rendered by a larger Bench of Judges.

xxx

18. We are, however, duty bound to state and record that in a Reference made Under Section 366 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure., there is no question of the High Court short-circuiting the process of Reference by merely relying upon any concession made by the counsel for the convict or that of counsel for the State. A duty is cast upon the High Court to examin