Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Vikram Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017)

Date of the Judgment: July 7, 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 635

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

Can a review petition be used to re-argue a criminal appeal? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a death penalty, clarifying the scope of review jurisdiction. The court emphasized that review is not a second chance to present old arguments, but a mechanism to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. This judgment reinforces the principle of finality in judicial decisions, while also ensuring that justice is served in cases of clear error.

This judgment was authored by Ashok Bhushan, J., with Dipak Misra, J., and R. Banumathi, J., concurring.

Case Background

Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh were convicted by the trial court for offenses under Section 302 (murder), Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom), Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court sentenced them to death. The High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court initially dismissed their appeals on January 25, 2010. Subsequently, the convicts filed a review petition, which was also dismissed on April 20, 2011. Following a Constitution Bench judgment in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India And Others, the convicts filed criminal miscellaneous petitions to reopen their review petitions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to death. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh while converting the death sentence of Smt. Sonia to life imprisonment. The review petitions filed by Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh were dismissed by circulation. The applicants then filed criminal miscellaneous petitions to reopen their review petitions based on the Constitution Bench judgment in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court Of India And Others.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court’s power to review its judgments is derived from Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which states:

“137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.— Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.”

Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, further defines the review process. Rule 1 of Order 40 states:

“1. 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 47 Rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.”

The Court also referred to Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. The Court noted that a certificate is required for secondary evidence of electronic records but not for primary evidence.

Arguments

Arguments by the Applicants (Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh):

• Tape-Recorded Conversation: The applicants argued that the tape-recorded conversation was relied upon without a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, making it inadmissible as evidence. They cited the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others, (2014) 10 SCC 473, to support this claim.

• Chemical Examiner’s Report: The applicants contended that the Chemical Examiner’s report indicated death was caused by an overdose of chloroform and pentazocine poisoning, which should have led to a conviction under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC, not Section 302 (murder).

• Disclosure Statement of Jasvir Singh: The applicants argued that while the disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh led to the recovery of the dead body, it did not connect Vikram Singh to the crime.

• Fingerprints on Cars: The applicants claimed that the court erred in relying on the fingerprint evidence, stating that the cars belonged to Vikram Singh, which made the presence of his fingerprints insignificant.

• Death Penalty: The applicants argued that the case did not qualify as the “rarest of rare cases” to warrant a death penalty. They relied on the judgments in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, to support their claim.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Punjab and Complainant):

• Tape-Recorded Conversation: The respondents argued that the tape-recorded conversation was primary evidence, as it was the original recording of the ransom call. Therefore, a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, was not required.

• Chemical Examiner’s Report: The respondents contended that the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was based on a comprehensive assessment of all available evidence, including ocular and medical evidence.

• Disclosure Statement of Jasvir Singh: The respondents argued that the trial court and the High Court had considered all evidence, including ocular evidence, which established Vikram Singh’s role in the crime.

• Fingerprints on Cars: The respondents clarified that the Court had not stated that the cars belonged to Vikram Singh. The Court had only stated that the fingerprints found on the cars belonged to the respective applicants.

• Death Penalty: The respondents argued that the High Court had considered all mitigating and aggravating factors before confirming the death penalty, and that the Supreme Court had correctly upheld this decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether there were sufficient grounds to review its earlier judgment affirming the death sentence awarded to the applicants. Specifically, the Court examined:

1. Whether the tape-recorded conversation was admissible as evidence.
2. Whether the chemical examiner’s report necessitated a conviction under Section 304A instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
3. Whether the disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh connected Vikram Singh to the crime.
4. Whether the fingerprint evidence was correctly interpreted.
5. Whether the death penalty was appropriately awarded.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a review petition is not an opportunity to re-argue a case, but rather to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that it could not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion unless there was a clear error or miscarriage of justice. The Court also focused on the fact that the tape recording was primary evidence, the conviction was based on a holistic view of evidence, the role of both accused was established by the Trial Court and the High Court and the death penalty was awarded after considering all relevant factors.

The Court rejected the argument that the tape-recorded conversation was inadmissible, stating:

“The tape recorded conversation was not secondary evidence which required certificate under Section 65B, since it was the original cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded…”

The Court also clarified that the review jurisdiction is not an opportunity to re-appreciate evidence:

“In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible.”

The Court reiterated the limited scope of review by stating:

“A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”

The Court emphasized that the death penalty was awarded after due consideration of all factors:

“This Court in its judgment dismissing the appeals referred to Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh and has categorically applied its mind to various parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgments and on the broad principle which emerged from the judgments for evaluating the category of the rarest of the rare case.”

Key Takeaways

• A review petition in a criminal case is not a rehearing of the appeal. It is only to correct errors apparent on the face of the record.
• Primary evidence, such as the original tape recording, does not require a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.
• The court will not re-appreciate evidence in a review petition unless there is a clear error or miscarriage of justice.
• The death penalty is awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases, after considering all mitigating and aggravating factors.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The review applications were rejected, and the death penalty was upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue a case. The scope of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The court reiterated that the review jurisdiction is not an opportunity to re-appreciate evidence and that the death penalty is awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases, after considering all mitigating and aggravating factors. The Court also clarified that primary evidence, such as original tape recordings, does not require a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed by Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh, upholding their death sentences. The Court clarified the scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is not an opportunity to re-argue a case but to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court also clarified that the original tape recording was primary evidence and did not require a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment reinforces the principle of finality in judicial decisions while ensuring that justice is served in cases of clear error.