Review – Nirbhaya Case – Gang rape and murder of a young woman – All four accused convicted and sentenced to death by the trial Court – Death penalty confirmed by the High Court – Appeals dismissed by the Supreme Court – Review petition filed by one petitioner-accused – Held: In instant case, review petition does not disclose any ground, on which review jurisdiction can be exercised by the Supreme Court u/Art.137 r/w. Or.XLVII, r.1 of the Rules – Submissions raised by the petitioner were more or less same as it was advanced at the time of hearing of the appeal and Supreme Court had already considered the relevant submissions and dealt with them in its Judgment – By review petition the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on merits of the case by pointing out certain evidences and materials which were on record and were already looked into by the trial Court, High Court and Supreme Court as well – Constitution of India – Art.137 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. XLVII, r.1.
Review – Power of the Supreme Court – Held: The power of review of the Supreme Court as envisaged u/Art.137 of the Constitution is no doubt wider than review jurisdiction conferred by other statutes on the Court – Art.137 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 u/Art.145 of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Arts.137 and 145.
Rejecting the Review Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. The power of review of the Supreme Court as envisaged under Article 137 of the Constitution is no doubt wider than review jurisdiction conferred by other statutes on the Court. Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or made, subject, of course, to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rule made under Article 145 of the Constitution. [Para 5][903-C-D]
2. An application to review a judgment is not to be lightly entertained and this Court could exercise its review jurisdiction only when grounds are made out as provided in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 framed under Article
145 of the Constitution of India. As per rule, review in a criminal proceeding is permissible only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. [Paras 6, 7][903-E, G]
3. In review petition, petitioner submitted that police arrested accused-petitioner from Karoli, the State of Rajasthan on 17.12.2012 in the morning and he was shown to be arrested in the evening of 18.12.2012 at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi. The High Court has dealt with this submission and has noticed that petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in an answer of question No.132 claimed that he was not apprehended at his village Karoli, Rajasthan but was apprehended at Ravidass Camp in Delhi. Police have shown a formal arrest on 18.12.2012 and this Court vide its judgment dated 05.05.2017 has also noticed the fact that accused was formally arrested at Safdarjung Hospital on 18.12.2012 at 6.30 p.m. at Safdarjung Hospital, in the evening. This submission does not make out any ground to hold that conviction and trial of the accused is vitiated in any manner so as to call for review of the judgment dated 05.05.2017. There is no apparent error in the Judgment dated 05.05.2017. [Paras 14, 29][908-G-H; 911-A-C]
4. Petitioner further contended that the illegal detention of Petitioner-accused in Karoli/Rajasthan on 17.12.2012 and failure to present him before the nearest Magistrate was not considered by this Court. The details of arrest of accused No.2-petitioner have been referred to in detail in the judgment dated 05.05.2017 and the various recoveries are also referred therein. [Para 44][917-B-C]
5. The argument that accused No.2-Petitioner does not know driving has not been raised during the trial or in evidence and also cross-examination of witnesses by the accused. Upon consideration of the evidence of PW-1 and other evidences including scientific evidence, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that accused no.2-Petitioner was driving the bus. Issue whether accused No.2- Petitioner has a driving licence for driving the bus or not has no relevance with regard to conviction recorded against the accused which has been affirmed by the High Court and this Court as well. [Para 35][913-A-C]
6. Petitioner has attacked the dying declarations of the victim. This Court had elaborately considered all the three dying declarations of the victims. All the three dying declarations having been relied by trial court, High Court and this Court and all arguments attacking the dying declarations having been considered and rejected, in its judgment dated 05.05.2017, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same issues which were already considered and expressly rejected by this Court. [Para 39][915-E-F]
7. Petitioner has attacked the evidence of P.W.1 and tried to point out certain contradictions and errors. This Court has examined the evidence of PW.1 extensively and have given ample reason for accepting the said evidence as reliable. The petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter. [Paras 21, 42][909-F; 916-F]
8. Another contention raised by petitioner is that there were two different recoveries from accused No.2-petitioner during his detention only to falsely implicate him and this has not been considered by this Court. The arrest and recovery of accused No.2-petitioner have been referred and the details of arrest of all the accused and recovery of the articles recovered from each of them are also further referred to in judgment. In the light of various decisions, the scope of recoveries was considered and the arguments raised on behalf of accused No.2-petitioner were held to be untenable. The arguments now advanced raising doubts about the arrest and recovery of articles, make no ground for reviewing the judgment dated 05.05.2017. [Para 43][916-F-H; 917-A-B]
9. The submissions which have been raised by Petitioner in this review petition are more or less the submissions which were advanced at the time of hearing of the appeal and this Court had already considered the relevant submissions and dealt them in its judgment dated 05.05.2017. This court had cautiously gone into and revisited the entire evidences on record and after being fully satisfied had dismissed the appeal. By the review petition the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on merits of the case by pointing out certain evidences and materials which were on the record and were already looked into by the trial court, High court and this Court as well. [Para 46][917-E-G]
10. In review petition, the petitioner had tried to raise the plea that he was not in the bus and he has nothing to do with the incident. The factum of he being involved in the offence having been gone into by all courts and after marshalling the evidences, he having been convicted and sentenced, it is not open for the petitioner in the review petition to contend that he had nothing to do with the incident. [Para 47][917-G-H; 918-A] 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 – relied on.
Sow Chandra Kante and another v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674; P.N. Eswara Iyer and others v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 : [1980] 2 SCR 889; Devender Pal Singh v. State, NCT of Delhi (2003) 2 SCC 501 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 332; Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan and Others v. State through Superintendent of Police CBI (1999) 9 SCC 323 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 540; Prabhu v. Emperor AIR 1944 PC 73 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.