Summary
Following an oral hearing of the reopened death-sentence reviews, the Court found no review ground and rejected the applications. The original ransom-call cassette was primary evidence, and the remaining objections sought reappraisal or misread the earlier judgment. The previously affirmed convictions and death sentences were left undisturbed.
Issues
- Whether the reopened review established apparent error or manifest injustice concerning evidence, conviction or sentence.
Provisions considered
- Article 137 and Order XL Rule 1, Constitution of India and Supreme Court Rules, 1966The constitutional review power is broad enough to correct manifest injustice, but ordinary criminal review requires apparent material error and cannot become a fresh appeal. (¶ 7–21)
- Sections 7, 62 and 65B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The original cassette recording ransom calls was treated as relevant primary evidence, distinguished from secondary electronic evidence requiring certification. (¶ 23–24)
Held
- Review does not permit repetition of rejected arguments or a different appraisal merely because another view is possible. A patent material error resulting in miscarriage of justice must be shown in the ordinary case. (¶ 10–21)
- The complainant handed over the original recording cassette; the certification objection premised on secondary evidence therefore failed. The Court reaffirmed the certification requirement for secondary electronic records. (¶ 23–24)
- The poisoning, recovery and fingerprint arguments disclosed no apparent error. The earlier judgment identified whose fingerprints were recovered, not ownership of the cars; sentencing factors had already been considered under the rarest-of-rare framework. (¶ 25–31)
Result
Review applications rejected after oral hearing; judgment of 25 January 2010 left undisturbed.