VINAY SHARMA & ANR. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: [2018] 7 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 09-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
919
VINAY SHARMA & ANR.
v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
(Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 671-673 of 2017)
In
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 608 & 609-610 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 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-C-
D, 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
[2018] 7 S.C.R. 919
919
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 7 S.C.R.
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 well-
settled principles, this Court held that all the three dying
declarations are true, voluntary and consistent.  [Para 35][935-
E-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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
921
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 juvenilit

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