https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465111 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. en-us Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Dec 2025 18:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465111 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465111