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 petitions filed by the two petitioners-accused – Held: In review petitions, petitioners cannot ask the Court to re-hear the appeals on merits which submissions had already been noted, considered and rejected – Criminal appeals filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the High Court were heard by the Supreme Court giving them sufficient time for raising all possible submissions and same were duly considered in the main judgment – In instant case, no ground has been made out which may furnish any ground to review the judgment – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or.XLVII, r.1 – Constitution of India – Art.137.
Dismissing the Review Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. An application to review a judgment is not to be lightly entertained and this Court could exercise its review jurisdiction only when those 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 20, 21][927-CD, F]
2. The submission made by petitioners attacking the evidence of PW-1 sole eye-witness, who was also injured in the incident need not to be considered in these review petitions. All submissions impeaching evidence of PW-1 were made when the appeals were heard on merit. This Court had considered all submissions attacking the evidence of PW-1 and after examining the relevant evidences had relied on evidence of PW-1. In the review petitions, petitioners cannot ask the Court to re-hear the appeals on merits which submissions had already been noted, considered and rejected. [Para 28][933-E-G]
3. The submission of Petitioners that Bus Ex.P-1, has been falsely implicated is also stated to be rejected. All these submissions were considered by this Court while delivering the judgment in paragraphs 98-107. This Court has rejected the submission of the petitioners that it was a case of plantation of Bus, the Bus was found to be involved in the incident from the evidence on record. [Para 29][933-G-H]
4. All the contentions raised regarding the three dying declarations of the victim have been considered in detail. Considering all the three dying declarations, in the light of wellsettled principles, this Court held that all the three dying declarations are true, voluntary and consistent. [Para 35][935E-F]
5. The plea of alibi put forth by petitioner no.1 that he was present in the musical programme organised by the SCC Unit of the Church in the DDA Park in his locality has been elaborately considered by this Court which has also referred to the evidence of PW-84 and PW-85 who have deposed that their church(es) never organised any musical programme/event in the DDA park. While considering the plea of alibi raised by petitioner no.1 referring to the evidence of DW-5 mother of petitioner no.1, DW-7 and DW-9 this Court held that the plea of alibi raised by petitioner no.1 was not acceptable. [Para 39][936-G-H; 937-A-C]
6. Plea of alibi raised by petitioner no.1 was also considered in the light of the footprints lifted from the bus (Ext.P/1). PW-46 Senior Scientific Officer (Fingerprints), CFSL, CBI examined the chance prints lifted from the bus marked as “Q.1” and “Q.4” was found identical with the left palmprint and right thumb impression of petitioner no.1. After referring to the evidence of PW-46 and the expert report (Ext. PW-46/D), this Court held that the evidence clearly establishes the presence of petitioner no.1 in the bus. There is no merit in the contention that the plea of alibi was not considered by this Court. [Para 40][937-C-E]
7. Likewise, video clippings relied upon by petitioner no.1 (Ext.DW-10/1) was considered in the judgment wherein this Court held that petitioners were not in the DDA District Park at 08:16 pm on 16.12.2012. [Para 41][937-F]
8. The issue of juvenility of petitioner no.1 was considered by the trial court and trial court on the basis of the materials on record held that petitioner No.1 was not a juvenile. The trial court on being fully satisfied that petitioner is not a juvenile has rightly rejected the application for ossification test submitted by petitioner No.1. [Para 42][937-G-H]
9. The submission of the petitioner No.2 that he was juvenile at the time of occurrence was also considered by the trial court and rejected. The trial court on the basis of the material placed before it had rightly concluded that petitioner No.2 was not a juvenile. The respondent has rightly referred to the proceedings of trial court dated 10.09.2013. In this respect this submission also does not furnish any ground for review of the judgment. [Para 43][938-A-B]
10. The criminal appeals filed by the appellants (petitioners herein) against the judgment of the High Court were heard by this Court giving them sufficient time for raising all possible submissions. The hearing in criminal appeals continued about 38 days. The appellants/petitioners had made elaborate submissions which were all duly considered in main judgment. In these review petitions no ground has been made out which may furnish any ground to review the judgment. [Para 44][938-B-D]
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.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; 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 – 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.