AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 18-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH
v.
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Review Petition (Criminal) D No. 44603 of 2019
In
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 609-610 of 2017)
DECEMBER 18, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or. XLVII, r.1 – Review in death
penalty cases – Nirbhaya Case – Criminal appeal filed by the
petitioner-accused (cleaner of the bus) was dismissed by the
Supreme Court vide judgment dated. 05.05.2017 in Mukesh and
another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others reported as [2017] 6 SCR
1 – Conviction and death penalty imposed upon the petitioner by
the trial court and the High Court was confirmed – Review petition
– Held: Scope of review is limited – Review in the criminal
proceedings is permissible only on the ground of error apparent
on the face of the record – Review petition is not a rehearing of
the appeal over again – Grounds raised by the petitioner in this
review petition are identical to those raised by the co-accused in
their review petitions which were considered and rejected by
Supreme Court – Further, general contentions put forth against the
capital punishment cannot be gone into in this review petition – A
party is not entitled to seek review of the judgment merely for the
purpose of rehearing of the appeal and a fresh decision –
Considering the manner in which the offence was committed,
Supreme Court in the judgment dated. 05.05.2017 held that the
case falls within “the rarest of rare cases”– 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 in the
appreciation of evidence or the findings of the judgment dated.
05.05.2017 calling for review – Constitution of India – Arts.137,
145 – Penal Code, 1860 – 120-B, 201, 302, 307, 365, 366,
376(2)(g), 377, 395, 397 and 412.
   [2019] 15 S.C.R. 342
342
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
Constitution of India– Arts.137 and 145 – Power of Supreme
Court u/Art.137 – Held: Art.137 empowers the Supreme Court to
review any judgment pronounced or made, subject to the provisions
of any law made by the Parliament or any rule made u/Art.145.
Dismissing the review petition, the Court
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 co-
accused 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; 349-
D-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
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
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 evidenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.