LexVIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 177 VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA AND ANR. A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. (Criminal M.P. Nos.16673-16674 of2016and16675-16676 of2016) In (Review Petition (Cr!.) Nos.192-193 of2011) In (Criminal Appeal Nos.1396-1397 of2008) JULY07,2017 fDIPAK MISRA, R. BANUMATHI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J B c Constitution of India - Art. 13 7 - Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court - On facts, conviction of three 4/ss. 302, 364A, 201 and 120B and sentenced to death - Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of two, however commuted the death D sentence of lady co~accused to life imprisonment - Review petitions - Held: This Court while affirming the judgment of the High Court, found no error apparent on the record - Submissions raised in the review petition do not raise any ground for review - Submission that tape recorded conversation was relied on without there being any certificate u!s. 65B as such not a valid evidence, E cannot be accepted - Tape recorded conversation was not secondary · evidence which required certificate uls. 65B, since it was the original cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded - Submission that the death was caused due to overdose of chlorofr;rm and pentazocine poisoning, as such the conviction ought to be uls. 304A and not u/ F . s. 302 cannot be accepted - Conviction of the applicants was based on cogent, ocular and medical evidence and there was no apparent error on the face of the record in recording conviction of the applicants ·uls. 302 and 364A - Penal Code, 1860 - 302, 364A, 201and120B - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 65B. Art. 13 7 - Power of review - Scope and ambit of.- Explained - Or. 40 r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966. G Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 65B - Admissibility of electronic records - Reliance on the tape recorded conversation - Requirement of certificate u/s. 65B - Held: For admission of secondary evidence H 177 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A of electronic record a certificate as contemplated by s. 65B is a mandatory condition - Tape recorded conversation was original cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded, thus, not secondary evidence which required certificate u/s. 65B. B Rejecting the review applications, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court has constitutional power to review its judgment as granted by Article 137 of the Constitution which is subject to Supreme Court Rules, 1966. As per Rule 1 of Order 40 an application for review in a criminal proceeding can be entertained on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the c record. Granting power of review to this Court by the Constitution is in recognition of the universal principle that the power of review is part of all judicial system. Rule 1 of Order 40 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 provides for the procedure and manner in which the power of review can be exercised by this Court. Under Order 40 Rule 1 no application for review can be entertained except on D the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. Although the power of review granted to this Court is wider but normally and ordinarily the review in a criminal case has to be on the grounds as enumerated in Rule 1 of Order 40. (Paras 9, 10, 171 [183-E-G; 189-C, DI E F 1.2 It Is clear that scope, ambit and parameters of review jurisdiction are well defined. Normally in a criminal proceeding, review applications cannot be entertained except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. Further, the power given to this Court under Article 137 is wider and in an appropriate case can be exercised to mitigate a manifest injustice. By review application an applicant cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on the grounds which were urged at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal. Even if the applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the conviction or sentence of the accused that is not a sufficient ground for review. G This Court shall exercise Its jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in earlier decision due to judicial fallibility. There has to be error apparent on the face of the record leading miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction under Article 137 read with Order 40 Rule 1. H There has to be a material error manifest on the face of the record VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 179 . with results in the miscarriage of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.