Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty in Nirbhaya Case: Review Petitions Dismissed (9 July 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 9 July 2018

Citation: Not Available

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

Can a judgment of the Supreme Court be reviewed merely based on a re-argument of the same points? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question while considering review petitions filed by the convicts in the Nirbhaya case. The court ultimately dismissed these petitions, upholding the death penalty awarded to the convicts. This judgment clarifies the limited scope of review jurisdiction in criminal cases.

Case Background

The case involves the brutal rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman, referred to as Nirbhaya. The trial court convicted the petitioners, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, along with three others, and sentenced them to death. The Delhi High Court confirmed the death penalty on 13 March 2014. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the High Court’s judgment on 5 May 2017. The petitioners then filed review petitions against the Supreme Court’s judgment of 5 May 2017.

Timeline:

Arguments

The petitioners, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, argued for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment primarily on the following grounds:

• **Abolition of Death Penalty:** The petitioners argued that the death penalty should be abolished in India, citing moral and practical reasons, and highlighting that many countries have abolished it.
• **Faulty Investigation:** They contended that the investigation was flawed, with the prosecuting agency targeting vulnerable individuals to cover up their inefficiency.
• **Evidence of PW1:** The petitioners questioned the credibility of the sole eyewitness (PW1), citing inconsistencies in his statements.
• **Implication of the Bus:** They argued that the bus involved in the incident was falsely implicated, and the CCTV footage was not thoroughly examined.
• **Dying Declarations:** The petitioners claimed that the three dying declarations were fabricated and inconsistent, and should not be relied upon.
• **DNA Evidence:** They challenged the accuracy of the DNA tests, citing blood transfusions that could affect the results.
• **Alibi of Vinay Sharma:** The petitioners presented an alibi for Vinay Sharma, stating he was at a musical program at the time of the incident.
• **Juvenility:** They claimed that both petitioners were minors at the time of the incident.

The State, represented by Shri Sidharth Luthra, refuted these submissions, arguing that:

• The review petition was an attempt to re-argue the appeals, which is not permissible under law.
• The death penalty is constitutionally valid, as upheld in **Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684**.
• The investigation was scientifically carried out, and the evidence was properly considered by the court.
• All the submissions regarding the evidence of PW1, the implication of the bus, the dying declarations, and the DNA evidence had already been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court.
• The plea of alibi and juvenility were also considered and rejected by the trial court and the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record to review the judgment dated 05.05.2017.
2. Whether the submissions made by the petitioners furnish any ground to review the judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions of both parties and made the following observations:

The Supreme Court also made the following observations regarding the authorities:

• The Court relied on Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684* to reject the argument for the abolition of the death penalty, reiterating its constitutional validity.
• The Court cited Sow Chandra Kante and another v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674*, P.N. Eswara Iyer and othersv. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680*, Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320*, and Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia and another vs. State of Punjab and another (2017) 8 SCC 518* to emphasize the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The well-established legal principles regarding the limited scope of review jurisdiction, especially in criminal cases.
• The detailed consideration of all evidence and arguments in the original judgment, which found no merit in the petitioners’ claims.
• The constitutional validity of the death penalty, as upheld by previous judgments of the Supreme Court.
• The need to uphold the findings of the lower courts, which had thoroughly examined the evidence and found the accused guilty.

The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court to decide is:

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 cannot be used to re-argue the case on the same grounds that were already considered.
• The death penalty remains constitutionally valid in India, as upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
• The courts will not interfere with the findings of fact unless there is a clear error or miscarriage of justice.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review petition in a criminal case will only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and that the review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-argue the case. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the limited scope of review jurisdiction and does not introduce any new legal principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed by Vinay Sharma and Pawan Kumar Gupta, upholding the death penalty awarded to them in the Nirbhaya case. The court reiterated that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue a case on the same grounds. This judgment reinforces the finality of the Supreme Court’s decisions and the constitutional validity of the death penalty in India.