LEGAL ISSUE: Review of a judgment confirming conviction and death penalty in a criminal case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Akshay Kumar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Judgment Date: 18 December 2019
Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2019
Citation: Review Petition (Criminal) D No.44603 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal Nos.609-610 of 2017
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Ashok Bhushan, J., A. S. Bopanna, J.
Can a death penalty be reviewed based on arguments already presented and dismissed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the review petition filed by Akshay Kumar Singh, one of the convicts in the Delhi gang rape case. The court ultimately dismissed the review petition, upholding the death penalty. The bench consisted of Justices R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, and A. S. Bopanna.
Case Background
On the evening of December 16, 2012, the victim and her friend (PW-1) boarded a bus in Delhi. The bus was driven by Ram Singh (since deceased), and the petitioner, Akshay Kumar Singh, was the helper. The victim was gang-raped in the moving bus, and an iron rod was inserted into her private parts. PW-1 was also assaulted. The victims were then thrown from the bus in a naked/semi-naked condition. The victim was treated in Delhi and later in Singapore, where she died on December 29, 2012.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 16 December 2012 | Victim and PW-1 board the bus, gang rape occurs. |
| 16 December 2012 | Victim is admitted to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. |
| 21 December 2012 | Second dying declaration of the victim is recorded. |
| 25 December 2012 | Third dying declaration of the victim is recorded. |
| 27 December 2012 | Victim is shifted to Mt. Elizabeth Hospital, Singapore. |
| 29 December 2012 | Victim dies in Singapore. |
| 05 May 2017 | Supreme Court confirms conviction and death penalty in Criminal Appeal Nos.609-610 of 2017. |
| 09 July 2018 | Review petitions of co-accused are dismissed. |
| 02 November 2019 | Complaint filed by father of co-accused Pawan Gupta alleging bribery by PW-1. |
| 18 December 2019 | Supreme Court dismisses Akshay Kumar Singh’s review petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted the petitioner and other accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including Sections 120-B, 376 (2)(g), 377, 365, 366, 395, 397, 302, 307, 412 and 201, and imposed the death penalty. The High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court also upheld the conviction and death sentence in Criminal Appeal Nos.609-610 of 2017. The petitioner filed a review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court cited Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments, subject to parliamentary law and rules made under Article 145. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, specifies that in criminal proceedings, a review is permissible only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that review is not a rehearing of the appeal.
The Court also referred to the following provisions:
- Article 137 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments.
- Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Limits review in criminal proceedings to cases of error apparent on the face of the record.
Arguments
The petitioner, Akshay Kumar Singh, argued for a review of the judgment based on several grounds, including:
- Futility of awarding death sentence in Kalyug.
- The high level of pollution in Delhi NCR making life short.
- Death penalty as a violation of human rights and the principle of non-violence.
- Lack of professional skills of the investigating agency and biased investigation.
- Unreliability of the dying declarations of the victim.
- Plea of alibi, claiming he was not in Delhi on the night of the incident.
- Absence of injury to the uterus despite the alleged insertion of an iron rod.
- Improper examination of CCTV footage, false implication of the bus, and coercion of the bus owner.
- Media pressure leading to false implication.
The Solicitor General, representing the State, argued that the evidence had been thoroughly considered by the trial court, High Court, and Supreme Court. He contended that the same grounds were raised and dismissed in previous review petitions by co-accused.
| Petitioner’s Submissions | State’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ Death penalty is futile in Kalyug due to short life spans. | ✓ Evidence was thoroughly considered by all courts. |
| ✓ Death penalty violates human rights and non-violence. | ✓ Same grounds were dismissed in previous review petitions. |
| ✓ Investigating agency lacked professional skills and conducted biased investigation. | |
| ✓ Dying declarations are unreliable. | |
| ✓ Plea of alibi: Petitioner was not in Delhi on the night of the incident. | |
| ✓ Absence of injury to the uterus despite alleged insertion of iron rod. | |
| ✓ Improper examination of CCTV footage, false implication of the bus, and coercion of the bus owner. | |
| ✓ Media pressure led to false implication. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame new issues but considered whether there was any error apparent on the face of the record in its previous judgment that would warrant a review.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the death penalty is futile in Kalyug and due to pollution. | Rejected | These grounds are not valid reasons to review a death sentence in a serious case. |
| Whether the death penalty violates human rights. | Rejected | General contentions against capital punishment cannot be considered in a review petition. |
| Whether the investigation was flawed. | Rejected | General allegations without specific evidence are insufficient. All points were previously considered. |
| Whether the dying declarations were unreliable. | Rejected | The Court had already considered the three dying declarations and found them credible. |
| Whether the petitioner’s plea of alibi was valid. | Rejected | The plea of alibi was an afterthought and the evidence was insufficient. |
| Whether the absence of injury to the uterus disproves the use of iron rod. | Rejected | The Court had already considered this point and rejected it based on medical expert opinion. |
| Whether other contentions regarding CCTV footage, bus implication, and witness coercion were valid. | Rejected | These contentions were previously raised and rejected by the Court. |
| Whether media pressure led to false implication. | Rejected | Media reports cannot be a basis for reviewing a judgment. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that review is only proper where a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in. |
| Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise. |
| Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 654 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that a review petition cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence. |
| Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia and Another v. State of Punjab and Another (2017) 8 SCC 518 | Supreme Court of India | Stated that review is permissible only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. |
| P.N Iswara Iyer and Others v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the scope of review in civil and criminal proceedings. |
| Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 8 SCC 149 | Supreme Court of India | Dismissed review petitions of co-accused on similar grounds. |
| Vinay Sharma and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2018) 8 SCC 186 | Supreme Court of India | Dismissed review petitions of co-accused on similar grounds. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s arguments on futility of death penalty, pollution, human rights, flawed investigation, unreliable dying declarations, alibi, absence of injury to uterus, and media pressure. | Rejected all arguments, stating they were either previously considered or not valid grounds for review. |
| State’s argument that the evidence was thoroughly considered and the same grounds were dismissed in previous review petitions. | Accepted, stating that the review petition is not for re-hearing of the appeal. |
Authorities Viewed by the Court:
- Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674: *The Court held that review is only proper where a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.* The Court used this case to reiterate the limited scope of review.
- Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320: *In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion.* The Court used this case to emphasize that a review is not a re-hearing of the appeal.
- Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 654: *In a review petition it is not open to this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible.* The Court used this case to support that a review petition cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence.
- Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia and Another v. State of Punjab and Another (2017) 8 SCC 518: *Normally in a criminal proceeding, review applications cannot be entertained except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.* The Court used this case to emphasize the limited scope of review in criminal cases.
- P.N Iswara Iyer and Others v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680: *Order XL Rule 1 affords the wider set of grounds for review of orders in civil proceedings, but limits the grounds vis-à-vis criminal proceedings to errors apparent on the face of the judgment.* The Court used this case to distinguish the scope of review in civil and criminal cases.
- Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 8 SCC 149: *The court observed that the submissions urged by the other accused were already considered while delivering the judgment and were rejected.* The Court used this case to show that similar arguments had already been rejected.
- Vinay Sharma and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2018) 8 SCC 186: *The grounds raised in the present review petition are almost repetition of the arguments raised in the earlier review petitions which were rejected and in our view, cannot be raised repeatedly.* The Court used this case to show that similar arguments had already been rejected.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a review petition is not a rehearing of the original appeal. The Court emphasized that a review is only permissible when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and not for re-evaluation of evidence. The Court also noted that the grounds raised by the petitioner were similar to those raised by co-accused in earlier review petitions, which had been dismissed.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to legal procedure | 40% |
| Rejection of re-evaluation of evidence | 30% |
| Consistency with previous judgments | 20% |
| No error apparent on record | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court’s review jurisdiction in criminal cases is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record.
- A review petition is not a rehearing of the original appeal.
- Arguments already considered and rejected cannot be raised again in a review petition.
- The death penalty was upheld in this case, emphasizing the “rarest of rare cases” doctrine.
Directions
No specific directions were given in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review petition in a criminal case is not an opportunity to re-argue the case or re-evaluate the evidence. It can only be entertained if there is a clear error on the face of the record. This reinforces the settled position of law that review jurisdiction is limited.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Akshay Kumar Singh, upholding the death penalty. The Court reiterated that a review is not a rehearing of the appeal and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court found no such error and affirmed its earlier judgment.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Review Petition, Death Penalty, Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Categories: Article 137, Article 145
Parent Category: Supreme Court Rules, 2013
Child Categories: Order XLVII Rule 1
Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Categories: Section 120-B, Section 376 (2)(g), Section 377, Section 365, Section 366, Section 395, Section 397, Section 302, Section 307, Section 412, Section 201
FAQ
Q: What is a review petition in the Supreme Court?
A: A review petition is a request to the Supreme Court to review its own judgment. It is not a re-hearing of the case but a limited process to correct errors apparent on the face of the record.
Q: What are the grounds for filing a review petition in a criminal case?
A: In criminal cases, a review petition can only be filed on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. This means a clear and obvious mistake in the judgment.
Q: Can a review petition be used to re-argue the case?
A: No, a review petition is not an opportunity to re-argue the case or re-evaluate the evidence. It is a limited process for correcting clear errors.
Q: What was the outcome of Akshay Kumar Singh’s review petition?
A: The Supreme Court dismissed Akshay Kumar Singh’s review petition, upholding the death penalty. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record in its previous judgment.
Q: What does “error apparent on the face of the record” mean?
A: It refers to a mistake or error that is obvious and evident from the judgment itself, without needing any further investigation or re-evaluation of evidence.