https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165248 Review jurisdiction under Article 137 is confined to narrow grounds such as patent error or miscarriage of justice and cannot be used to re-open evidence or re-argue facts. The belated plea that the accused was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 failed because it was not raised at the proper stages and the record consistently indicated age above the statutory limit. The sentencing objection based on the conviction and sentence being recorded on the same day was also rejected under Sections 235(2) and 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as it disclosed no legal basis for interference. The conviction and death sentence were left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 10 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165248 Review jurisdiction under Article 137 is confined to narrow grounds such as patent error or miscarriage of justice and cannot be used to re-open evidence or re-argue facts. The belated plea that the accused was a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 failed because it was not raised at the proper stages and the record consistently indicated age above the statutory limit. The sentencing objection based on the conviction and sentence being recorded on the same day was also rejected under Sections 235(2) and 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as it disclosed no legal basis for interference. The conviction and death sentence were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165248