Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Nirbhaya Case: Review Petition Dismissed (9 July 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9 July 2018

Citation: Not available in the source

Judges: Dipak Misra CJI, R. Banumathi J., Ashok Bhushan J.

Can a judgment of the Supreme Court be reviewed if there are claims of errors in the original verdict? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a review petition filed by one of the convicts in the horrific Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case. The court examined whether there were sufficient grounds to reconsider its earlier decision that upheld the conviction and death sentence.

The Supreme Court, in this judgment, was reviewing its own decision in the criminal appeal filed by Mukesh, one of the convicts in the Nirbhaya case. The review petition was filed under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, seeking to overturn the Court’s previous judgment that had upheld the conviction and sentence. The bench comprised Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi, and Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the judgment.

Case Background

On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old woman, referred to as Nirbhaya, was brutally gang-raped and assaulted in Delhi. The petitioner, Mukesh, was one of the accused in this heinous crime. The Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, convicted Mukesh and awarded him the death sentence. The Delhi High Court confirmed the death sentence and dismissed Mukesh’s appeal against his conviction and sentence.

Mukesh then filed a Criminal Appeal (No. 607 of 2017) before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on May 5, 2017. Subsequently, Mukesh filed a review petition seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s power to review its judgments is derived from Article 137 of the Constitution of India. However, this power is subject to laws made by Parliament and rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specifies the grounds for review:

“i. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.”

In criminal proceedings, a review is permissible only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court has clarified that a review is not a re-hearing of the appeal, and it is not an appeal in disguise.

Arguments

The petitioner, Mukesh, raised several arguments to support his review petition. These arguments were aimed at demonstrating errors in the original judgment and protecting his fundamental rights.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Illegal Arrest: Mukesh claimed that he was arrested in Karoli, Rajasthan, on December 17, 2012, but was shown to be arrested in Delhi on December 18, 2012. He argued that he was not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, violating his rights under Articles 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution.
• Coerced Legal Representation: Mukesh alleged that the police coerced him into signing a vakalatnama in favor of a police-sponsored advocate, V.K. Anand, and that his actual lawyer, M.L. Sharma, was not allowed to represent him initially.
• Torture and Coerced Confession: Mukesh claimed that he was tortured by the police, and his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was recorded under duress. He also stated that the affidavit he filed before the trial court regarding the torture was not considered by the Supreme Court.
• Lack of Driving License: Mukesh contended that he did not know how to drive a bus and only had a license for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV).
• Remand Application: The petitioner argued that the remand application filed by the Investigating Officer (IO) on December 22, 2012, showed that no disclosure was made until that date.
• Call Details: Mukesh submitted that his call details showed he could not have been in the bus on December 16, 2012, as he received a call from Ram Singh at 8:55 PM.
• Dying Declaration: The petitioner attacked the second dying declaration recorded by SDM Usha Chaturvedi, stating that there was no mention of it in the police diary.
• Contradictions in Evidence: Mukesh pointed out contradictions and errors in the evidence of PW.1.
• Pending Application: The petitioner argued that an application for additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. was pending before the Appellate Court.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Arrest Procedure: The respondent argued that the police, acting on information from Ram Singh, apprehended Mukesh in Karoli, Rajasthan, on the morning of December 17, 2012. He was brought to Delhi and formally arrested at Safdarjung Hospital on December 18, 2012, at 6:30 PM.
• Legal Representation: The respondent submitted that the trial court’s order sheet showed that Mukesh himself requested to discharge M.L. Sharma as his lawyer and engage V.K. Anand.
• No Torture Allegations: The respondent countered the torture allegations by stating that Mukesh was in judicial custody and had multiple interactions with the court, where he never complained of any torture. Medical checkups were also conducted, and no torture was ever proven.
• Driving License Irrelevant: The respondent argued that the issue of Mukesh not having a bus driving license was not raised during the trial or cross-examination of witnesses and was therefore irrelevant.
• Remand Application Explanation: The respondent clarified that the remand application was filed on December 22, 2012, after Mukesh was arrested on December 18, 2012, produced before the Magistrate on December 19, 2012, and the TIP was conducted on December 20, 2012.
• Call Details Evidence: The respondent contended that the Supreme Court had already considered all the evidence, including call details, and had concluded that Mukesh was in the bus.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues in the review petition:

1. Whether there are any grounds to exercise the review jurisdiction of the Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to determine the scope of review jurisdiction. These authorities were used to clarify the principles governing review petitions, especially in criminal matters.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering all the submissions and authorities, dismissed the review petition. The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments and held that there were no grounds to review its earlier judgment.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court used the authorities to define and limit the scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that review is not a re-hearing of the case but is limited to cases of error apparent on the face of the record. The Court also emphasized that review is not to be used to re-argue the same points that were already argued in the original appeal.

• Sow Chandra Kante and another v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674:* Cited to emphasize that review is only for glaring omissions or patent mistakes, not for re-arguing old points.
• P.N. Eswara Iyer and others v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680:* Cited to clarify that review power under Article 137 is wide in both criminal and civil proceedings and that the term “record” can include new material.
• Devender Pal Singh v. State, NCT of Delhi, (2003) 2 SCC 501:* Cited to emphasize that review is not a re-hearing of the appeal.
• Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan and Others vs. State through Superintendent of Police, CBI, (1999) 9 SCC 323:* Cited to highlight that review is not a re-hearing of the appeal and that it must be shown there has been a miscarriage of justice.
• Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320:* Cited to elaborate on the scope of review and when it is maintainable and not maintainable.
• Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia and another vs. State of Punjab and another (2017) 8 SCC 518:* Cited to reiterate that review is not for re-arguing the appeal and that it is exercised only for glaring omissions or patent mistakes.
• Prabhu v. Emperor, AIR 1944 PC 73:* Cited to support the view that a conviction is not affected by any irregularity in the arrest.
• Chhajju Ram v. Neki:* Cited to interpret “any other sufficient reason” in review petitions as reasons analogous to those specified in the rule.
• Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius:* Cited to interpret “any other sufficient reason” in review petitions as reasons analogous to those specified in the rule.
• Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.:* Cited to interpret “any other sufficient reason” in review petitions as reasons analogous to those specified in the rule.
• Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd.:* Cited to reiterate that review is not for reappreciating evidence and reaching a different conclusion.
• Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.:* Cited to emphasize that review is not a rehearing of the original matter.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the review petition was heavily influenced by the fact that the arguments presented were largely a repetition of those already considered in the original appeal. The Court emphasized that the review jurisdiction is not meant for re-arguing a case but for correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to uphold the finality of its judgments and to prevent the review process from being misused as a disguised appeal.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations. The court’s reasoning was primarily focused on the fact that no new facts were presented and the legal principles governing review jurisdiction. The ratio of fact to law is as follows:

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a review is not a rehearing of the case. The Court found that the arguments presented in the review petition were largely a repetition of those already considered and rejected during the original appeal. The Court also found no error apparent on the face of the record that would justify a review. The Court emphasized that its review jurisdiction is limited and should not be used to re-argue a case.

The Court also addressed the specific arguments raised by the petitioner, including the alleged illegal arrest, coerced legal representation, torture, and the issues related to the dying declarations and call details. The Court found that these arguments were either already considered in the original appeal or were not substantiated by the evidence on record.

The Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that there was no basis for a review of its original judgment.

“This court had cautiously gone into and revisited the entire evidences on record and after being fully satisfied had dismissed the appeal. By the 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 the record and were already looked into by the trial court, High court and this Court as well.”

“In review petition, the petitioner had tried to raise the plea that he was not in the bus and he has nothing to do with the incident. The factum of he being involved in the offence having been gone into by all courts and after marshalling the evidences, he having been convicted and sentenced, it is not open for the petitioner in the review petition to contend that he had nothing to do with the incident.”

“We after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondent and having gone through the grounds taken in the review petition, find that review petition does not disclose any ground, on which review jurisdiction can be exercised by this Court under Article 137 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme court Rules, 2013. Consequently, the review petition is rejected.”

Key Takeaways

• Limited Scope of Review: The Supreme Court reiterated that its review jurisdiction is limited and is not a substitute for an appeal.
• No Re-argument of Cases: Review petitions cannot be used to re-argue the same points that were already considered in the original appeal.
• Emphasis on Finality: The Court emphasized the importance of the finality of its judgments.
• Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: A review is only permissible in criminal cases if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
• Upholding Conviction: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review petition in a criminal case is not a rehearing of the appeal and is only permissible if there is an error apparent on the face ofthe record. The judgment reinforces the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and emphasizes the finality of the Supreme Court’s judgments. It also clarifies that review petitions cannot be used to re-argue the same points already considered in the original appeal. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and ensuring that review petitions are not used as a disguised form of appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the review petition in the Nirbhaya case reaffirms the court’s commitment to upholding its judgments and ensuring that the review process is not misused. The case serves as a reminder of the limited scope of review jurisdiction and the importance of finality in judicial decisions. The Court’s detailed examination of the petitioner’s arguments and its consistent application of legal principles highlight the rigor and integrity of the Indian judicial system. The judgment also underscores the gravity of the crimes committed in the Nirbhaya case and the importance of ensuring that justice is served.