Summary
The convict sought review of the judgment affirming his convictions for sexual assault and murder of two children and, by majority, his death sentence. The Court rejected challenges to the confession, forensic evidence, legal representation and sentencing. Khanna J agreed that conviction review failed but maintained his earlier minority position on sentence; the review petitions were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether apparent error or manifest injustice justified review of conviction or sentence.
- Whether the confession was voluntary and could be relied upon despite belated partial retraction.
- Whether legal assistance, forensic recovery and the evidence supporting the rape conviction were deficient.
- Whether later legislation, a sentencing dissent, circumstantial evidence or mitigating factors required commutation.
Held
- Review is narrower than appeal and cannot become a fresh merits hearing or reappreciation merely because another view is possible. Material apparent error, important new evidence affecting the outcome or manifest injustice is required. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- The Magistrate gave warnings and reflection time, verified voluntariness and returned the accused to judicial custody. The belated partial retraction did not undermine the confession; substantial admissions and independent corroboration supported guilt even apart from it. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Effective legal assistance is required, but the record showed competent trial representation and further assistance and review of evidence on appeal. No deficiency and consequential prejudice were established. Section 164 does not invariably require counsel’s presence, apart from the specified audio-video recording procedure. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- The sealed recovery and forensic evidence were not shown to have been tampered with. Medical injuries, the recovered clothing and DNA identification supported the rape conviction; the claimed absence of vaginal penetration did not establish error on this record. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
- The passing reference to later POCSO amendments concerned assessment of societal opinion, rather than retrospective conviction or punishment under that Act. The petitioner had been convicted of offences already punishable with death. (¶¶ 56, 57)
- A dissent on sentence does not by itself furnish a ground for reviewing the majority’s death sentence. Neither circumstantial evidence nor the asserted residual doubt required commutation here; the majority reassessed mitigation and retained its rarest-of-rare conclusion. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68)
- Khanna J concurred in rejecting review of conviction but found no ground to revise his earlier minority opinion on sentence. His separate order did not join the majority’s death-sentence reasoning. (¶ Khanna J: unnumbered order)
Result
Review petitions dismissed. Convictions remained affirmed and the majority decision upholding death penalty remained operative. Khanna J retained his earlier minority position on sentence while concurring in rejection of the conviction challenge.