Summary
Review of Akshay Kumar Singh’s convictions and death sentence in the December 2012 Delhi case was declined. His challenges to investigation, dying declarations, alibi and sentencing repeated matters already considered and disclosed no error apparent on the record. Unsupported media allegations and a former prison officer’s published opinion did not supply a review ground.
Issues
- Whether any error apparent justified review of the convictions or death sentence.
- Whether repeated evidentiary arguments or unsupported later publications could reopen the judgment.
Provisions considered
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Review in criminal proceedings is confined to error apparent on the face of the record. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Review does not permit rehearing the appeal or fresh appreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible. A material manifest error causing miscarriage of justice, rather than repetition of rejected arguments, is required. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The investigation, multiple dying declarations, alibi, medical evidence and identification objections had already received consideration. Repeating them disclosed no error apparent warranting review. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Unsupported news allegations about a witness and a former prison officer’s published opinion concerning a co-accused’s death were not evidentiary material establishing a review ground. General objections to capital punishment likewise fell outside this review. (¶¶ 16, 20, 21, 29)
- The original judgment had considered the petitioner’s mitigation affidavit and aggravating circumstances. The Court found no apparent error in treating this case as rarest of rare or in confirming the death sentence. (¶¶ 28, 30, 31)
Result
Review petition dismissed. The judgment of 5 May 2017 confirming the petitioner’s convictions and death penalty remained undisturbed.