Akshay Kumar Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi)

HELD: 1.1 Scope of review is limited and review cannot be entertained except in cases of error apparent on the face of the record. Article 137 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or made, subject, of course, to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament or any rule made under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. Order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 dealing with review. Review is a not a rehearing of the appeal over again. In a review petition, it is not for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion. A review of the judgment is permitted only when it is shown that judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of the judgment. The grounds raised by the petitioner-accused in this review petition are identical to that of the grounds raised by the coaccused in their review petitions. Those grounds urged by the co-accused in their review petitions were considered and rejected by this Court. [Paras 8, 10, 12 and 14] [348-F-G; 349D-E; 350-H; 351-C-D]

P.N. Iswara Iyer and Ors. v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 – followed.

Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674 ; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013] 11 SCR 25 ; Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia and Another v. State of Punjab and Another (2017) 8 SCC 518 : [2017] 8 SCR 177 – relied on.

Mukesh and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2017) 6 SCC 1 : [2017] 6 SCR 1 – referred to.

1.2 Two grounds raised by the petitioner in this review petition are (i) futility of awarding death sentence in Kalyug, where a person is no better than a dead body; and (ii) that the level of pollution in Delhi NCR is so great that life is short anyhow and everyone is aware of what is happening in Delhi NCR in this regard and while so, there is no reason why death penalty should be awarded. It is unfortunate that such grounds have been raised in the matter as serious as the present case. The grounds raised in the petition alleging improper investigation and manipulation of evidence are too general and not specific. Each and every point raised by the petitioneraccused assailing the course of investigation was well considered by the trial court which had been gone through at the time of hearing of the criminal appeals. The same points cannot be urged again and again. [Paras 15, 17] [351-E; 352-A-B]

2. Dying declaration – There were three dying declarations recorded from the prosecutrix. This Court considered the three dying declarations and found that the multiple dying declarations inspire the confidence of the Court and are credible. The plea of alibi taken by the petitioner-accused and the evidence adduced by the petitioner was well-considered by this Court in Paras (247) to (269). Upon appreciation of evidence, this Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and the High Court rejecting the plea of alibi and held that plea of alibi taken by the petitioner is an afterthought. The appreciation of evidence in rejecting the plea of alibi does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and this cannot be urged as a ground for review. Elaborate submissions were made on the alleged use of iron rod and the same was rejected by well-considered reasonings in Paras (193) to (209) and (413) to (422) and the said findings thereon supported by the opinion of the medical expert do not suffer from any error. The review petition is not for re-hearing of the appeal on reappreciation of the evidence over and over again. A party is not entitled to seek review of the judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing of the appeal and a fresh decision. [Paras 22, 25-27] [353-F; 354-D; 355-D-F; 356-B]

3. Dismissal of the review petitions filed by the coaccused: The aggravating and mitigating circumstance and the affidavit filed by the petitioner was considered in detail in Para (324). The contention urged by the counsel for the parties and learned amicus curiae were considered in paras (327) to (368) and (511) to (518) of the judgment and the court observed that the background and family circumstances cannot be taken as the mitigating circumstances. Considering the manner in which the offence was committed, in the judgment dated 05.05.2017, this Court held that the case is falling within “the rarest of rare cases”. It is not found that these findings suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The mitigating circumstances elaborated upon by the defence by way of highlighting the comparatively young age of the convicts, their socio-economic background, their unblemished antecedents and their chances of reformation, fade into insignificance. In light of the aggravating circumstances and considering that the case falls within the category of “rarest of rare cases”, the death penalty is confirmed. No error apparent on the face of the record is found in the appreciation of evidence or the findings of the judgment dated 05.05.2017. None of the grounds raised in the review petition call for review of the judgment dated 05.05.2017. The review petition is dismissed. [Paras 28-31] [356-D-G; 357-D]

Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 8 SCC 149 : [2018] 7 SCR 898 ; Vinay Sharma and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2018) 8 SCC 186 : [2018]

7 SCR 919 – referred to.