Review limits, voluntary retracted confession, and rarest of rare sentencing upheld in a capital conviction challenge.

Review in death penalty matters remains confined to patent error apparent on the face of the record, material mistake, or manifest injustice, and cannot be used to reargue the appeal; no reviewable error was shown. A Section 164 CrPC confession was held voluntary where the Magistrate followed the required safeguards, and later retraction did not destroy its evidentiary value, especially as it was corroborated by independent evidence. The conviction for rape under the IPC was upheld on medical, forensic, recovery, and admission evidence. Commutation of the death sentence was refused because the minority view, residual doubt, and cited mitigating factors did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, and the case remained within the rarest of rare category.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or other ground warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment affirming conviction and death sentence; (ii) whether the petitioner's confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was voluntary and could be relied upon despite retraction; (iii) whether the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable on the evidence; and (iv) whether the case called for commutation of the death sentence on the ground of sentence review, including reliance on dissent, residual doubt, and mitigating circumstances.

Issue (i): whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or other ground warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment affirming conviction and death sentence.

Analysis: The scope of review, even in death penalty matters, is confined to a patent error apparent on the face of the record, material mistake, or manifest injustice. A review cannot be used to reargue the appeal or invite a fresh appreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible. The earlier judgment had already considered the record, the competing circumstances, and the sentence question in depth.

Conclusion: No reviewable error was shown, and the challenge to the earlier judgment failed.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner's confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was voluntary and could be relied upon despite retraction.

Analysis: The Magistrate had complied with the safeguards governing recording of confession, ensured that the accused was in judicial custody, explained the consequences, and gave him time for reflection. The later retraction was belated and did not displace the voluntariness of the confession. In any event, the confession was corroborated by independent evidence and could legally support conviction even as a retracted confession.

Conclusion: The confession was voluntary and reliable, and its retraction did not defeat its evidentiary value.

Issue (iii): whether the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The medical evidence, post-mortem findings, injury on the accused, recovery of the victim's underwear, matching of hair/DNA evidence, and the accused's own admissions established sexual assault. The evidence was sufficient even without exclusive dependence on the confession, and the argument that the act amounted only to a different offence was rejected.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.

Issue (iv): whether the case called for commutation of the death sentence on the ground of sentence review, including reliance on dissent, residual doubt, and mitigating circumstances.

Analysis: The Court held that a minority view in the earlier appeal did not furnish a ground to reopen the sentence. The evidence established guilt beyond residual doubt, the crime was cold-blooded and exceptionally grave, and the cited mitigating factors did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. The case continued to fall within the rarest of rare category.

Conclusion: The death sentence was not liable to be commuted and the sentence challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier judgment was left undisturbed in full, with the conviction and sentence maintained and the review petitions rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In review, interference is permissible only for a patent error or manifest injustice; a voluntary retracted confession corroborated by independent evidence remains usable; and a minority sentencing view does not by itself justify commutation of a death sentence where the crime falls within the rarest of rare category.

---