LexMUKESH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 7 S.C.R. MUKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (Review Petition (Crl.) No. 570 of 2017) In (Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2017) JULY 09, 2018 [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 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. [2018] 7 S.C.R. 898 898 A B C D E F G H 899 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 MUKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI A B C D E F G H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 7 S.C.R. 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.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.