2017 (7) TMI 1460 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rejects review applications under Article 137 and Order 40 Rule 1 for lack of apparent errors on record

Vikram Singh and Ors. Versus State of Punjab and Ors.

The SC rejected review applications filed against its earlier judgment dated 25.01.2010. The Court held that under Article 137 and Order 40 Rule 1, review ... Constitutional power to review its judgment as granted by Article 137 of the Constitution - Rule 1 of Order 40 - Error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- Under Order 40 Rule 1 no application for review can be entertained except on the ground of an error apparent on the fact of the record. Although, the power of review given to this Court in wider as has been held by the Constitution Bench in P.N. Eshwara [1980 (2) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT], Justice Krishna Iyer has given an illustration where the Court will not hesitate in exercising its power to review in a case where deceased himself walks in the Court on whose murder Accused were convicted. Justice Krishna Iyer rightly observed that Court is not powerless to do justice in such case. Thus, although the power of review granted to this Court is wider but normally and ordinarily the review in a criminal case has to be on the grounds as enumerated in Rule 1 of Order 40. What is 'an error apparent on the face of the record' has also been a subject matter of consideration by this Court in a large number of cases. What are the grounds on which this Court shall exercise its jurisdiction and what is the error apparent on the face of the record came to be considered by this Court in KAMLESH VERMA VERSUS MAYAWATI & ORS. [2013 (8) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT]. This Court held that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record. By review application an applicant cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on the grounds which were urged at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal. Even if the applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the conviction or sentence of the Accused that is not a sufficient ground for review. This Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in earlier decision due to judicial fallibility. There has to be error apparent on the face of the record leading miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction Under Article 137 read with Order 40 Rule 1. There has to be a material error manifest on the face of the record with results in the miscarriage of the justice. The submissions raised in the review petitions do not raise any ground for review of judgment of this Court dated 25.01.2010 - the review applications are rejected. Issues Involved:1. Delay in reopening the Review Petition.2. Scope and parameters of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.3. Admissibility of tape-recorded conversations without a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.4. Conviction under Section 302 IPC versus Section 304A IPC.5. Relevance of the disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh.6. Significance of fingerprint evidence.7. Appropriateness of the death penalty.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Reopening the Review Petition:The judgment condoned the delay in filing the criminal miscellaneous petitions for reopening the Review Petition Nos. 192-193 of 2016.2. Scope and Parameters of the Review Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:The judgment elaborated on Article 137 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to review its judgments. The Court emphasized that review is permissible only on grounds of 'an error apparent on the face of the record' as per Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The judgment cited multiple precedents to underline that review is not a rehearing but a mechanism to correct glaring omissions, patent mistakes, or grave errors that result in a miscarriage of justice.3. Admissibility of Tape-Recorded Conversations Without a Certificate Under Section 65B of the Evidence Act:The applicants contended that the tape-recorded conversation lacked a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, thus should not be admissible. The Court clarified that the cassette containing the recorded conversation was primary evidence and did not require a certificate under Section 65B. The judgment referenced Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Ors. (2014) to support that primary electronic records are admissible without such certification.4. Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Versus Section 304A IPC:The applicants argued that the death caused by chloroform and pentazocine poisoning should be classified under Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence) instead of Section 302 IPC (murder). The Court rejected this argument, stating that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was based on comprehensive evidence and there was no apparent error on the face of the record.5. Relevance of the Disclosure Statement of Jasvir Singh:The applicants claimed that the disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh, which led to the recovery of the dead body, did not implicate Vikram Singh. The Court dismissed this contention, noting that the trial court and the High Court had marshaled ocular evidence proving Vikram Singh’s involvement in the crime.6. Significance of Fingerprint Evidence:The applicants argued that the fingerprints found on the cars were not significant as the cars belonged to Vikram Singh. The Court clarified that it never stated the cars belonged to Vikram Singh but that his fingerprints were found on them, which was significant evidence of his involvement in the crime.7. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty:The applicants contested the death penalty, referencing Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab. The Court reiterated that it had already considered the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the High Court had drawn a balance-sheet which was adopted by the Supreme Court. The judgment found no error apparent on the record in affirming the death sentence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court, after carefully considering the submissions, concluded that the review petitions did not raise any valid grounds for review of the judgment dated 25.01.2010. Consequently, the review applications were rejected.