Summary
The Supreme Court rejected Mukesh’s review petition against its judgment confirming his conviction and death sentence in the December 2012 Delhi gang-rape and murder case. The alleged arrest, representation and coercion defects disclosed no apparent error. Challenges to his presence, recoveries, eyewitness testimony and dying declarations sought reconsideration of matters already examined on appeal.
Issues
- Whether the asserted procedural defects and evidentiary objections disclosed an apparent error or miscarriage of justice warranting review.
Provisions considered
- Article 137, Constitution of IndiaThe constitutional review power, governed by the Court’s rules, addresses material apparent error or manifest injustice rather than a fresh merits appeal. (¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 48)
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Criminal review requires an error apparent on the record; repetition of rejected arguments or another possible evidentiary view is insufficient. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 46, 48)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The petitioner’s recorded answers admitting that he drove the bus supported rejection of his renewed denial of presence; the coercion allegation was rejected on the trial record. (¶¶ 29, 31, 36, 37)
Held
- Review is not a rehearing of the appeal. A material apparent error producing miscarriage of justice may warrant intervention; repetition of rejected arguments, inconsequential mistakes or an alternative evidentiary view does not. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The arrest objection disclosed no error vitiating trial or conviction. The trial orders recorded the petitioner’s own change of counsel and did not substantiate the allegation that counsel was imposed or his statement coerced. (¶¶ 29, 30, 31)
- His driving and presence were established by evidence and his section 313 answers. The licence and call-location objections, recoveries and dying declarations had already been considered and supplied no review ground. (¶¶ 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44)
- The objection concerning a pending additional-evidence application did not justify review: pending applications stood closed on disposal of the appeal, and the parties had led the evidence within their power. (¶ 45)
- The petition attempted to reargue the concluded merits without disclosing a ground under Article 137 and Order XLVII Rule 1. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48)
Result
Review petition rejected. The judgment confirming conviction and death sentence remains undisturbed.