DEVENDER PAL SINGH versus STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 17-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DEVENDER PAL SINGH 
V. 
STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 17, 2002 
B 
[M.B. SHAH, B.N. AGRA WAL AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 137: 
Review application in Criminal proceedings-Scope of-Held, it has to 
C be proved that there is miscarriage of justice-Though miscarriage of justice 
is of wider amplitude, scope of inte1ference under review is limited-Review 
proceeding cannot be equated with original hearing-Finality of the Judgment 
of the Court cannot be reconsidered except where glaring omission or patent 
error has crept in earlier-Reference of the case to larger Bench would be 
D creation of a new forum-Supreme Court Rules, 1966-0rder XL Rules I and 
2. 
Review of death sentence-Scope of-Scope for Review of death sentence 
awarded is not there merely because one of the Judges in the Bench held that 
the accused should be acquilted or that life sentence was appropriate-
Sentencing. 
The Review Petitions seek review of the Judgment of this Court 
wherein death penalty was imposed on the accused. The petitions were 
restricted to the question of sentence. Petitioners contended that death 
sentence should not be awarded in a case where one of the three Judges 
recorded a finding of acquittal or held that life sentence was appropriate; 
that in case of acquittal by one Judge, the case would not be covered in 
the category "rarest of rare"; that as a matter of practice death sentence 
is not imposed in case of acquittal by trial Court or High Court; and that 
since one Judge felt that either life sentence would be imposed or the 
accused should be acquitted, the matter should be referred to larger Bench 
for review. Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: Per Arijit Pasaya/, J (for himself and Agrawal, J): 
I.I. Though the scope of review in criminal proceedings has been 
widened to a considerable extent, in any case review is not re-hearing of 
332 
DEVENDER PAL SINGH v. STATE N.C.T. or DELHI 
333 
the appeal all over again. In order to maintain the review petition it has A 
to be shown that there is a miscarriage of justice. Though the expression 
"miscarriage of justice" is of wider amplitude, it has to be kept in mind 
that the scope of interference is very limited. Ordinarily application for 
review is disposed of by circulation without any detailed arguments, unless 
otherwise ordered by the Court. 1337-G, H; 338-AI 
P.N. Eswara Iyer a11d Ors. v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 119801 
4 SCC 680 and Ramdeo Chauhan @Raj Nath v. State of Assam, 12001 I 5 
sec 714, referred to. 
B 
1.2. The scope for review of death sentence awarded is not there 
merely because one of the Judges in the Bench held that the accused should C 
be acquitted or that life sentence was appropriate. 1335-G; 338-BI 
Suthendraraja@Suthenthira Raja @Santhan and Ors. v. State through 
DSPICBI, SIT, Chennai, 11999] 9 SCC 323, relied on 
1.3. Review is not a routine procedure. A review of earlier order is 
not permissible unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest 
on the face of the order undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage 
of justice. A review of judgment in a case is a serious step and reluctant 
resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or 
D 
like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The stage of E 
review is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has 
the normal feature of finality. 1345-B-q 
Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1980) SC 
2041, relied on . 
1.4. Whatever nature of the proceeding it is beyond dispute that 
review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case 
and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be 
reconsidered except where glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave 
error has crept in earlier. 1345-D J 
Mis Northern India Caterers (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 
119801 2 sec 167, relied on. 
1.5. A judgment of the final Court of the country is final, and a 
review of such judgment is an exception. 1345-Ef 
F 
G 
H 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
1.6. Compelling reasons for review are non existent in the instant 
cases and acceptance of the prayer for reference to a larger Bench would 
be the creation of a new forum. 
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr., 120021 4 SCC 388 and 
Mohini Giri v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) 96/2002 AIR (2003) SC 642, 
B referred to. 
2. W

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.