Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 632

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA & ANOTHER – APPLICANTS/ PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL M.P.NOS. 16673-16676 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 192-193 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1396-1397 OF 2008
Decided On : 07-07-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants:Tripurari Ray, B.S. Billowria, Vijay Pratap Singh, Shilpa Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Original audio cassettes are primary evidence u/s 7 of Evidence Act and hence do not require certificate u/s 65B.
Review petitions can be entertained only on ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, and the error should have lead to miscarriage of justice.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 137 r/w Rule 1, Order 40, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Review in a criminal proceeding – Ordinarily maintainable only on ground of an error apparent on the face of the record despite widening of its scope. (Para 9, 17)
       (1975) 1 SCC 674; (1980) 4 SCC 680; (1999) 9 SCC 32; (2000) 6 SCC 224; (2003) 2 SCC 501 – Relied upon
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 137 r/w Rule 1, Order 40, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Review in a criminal proceeding – ‘An error apparent on the face of the record’ – The error should lead to miscarriage of justice – Power of review can be exercised in an appropriate case to mitigate a manifest injustice. (Para 21)
       (2013) 8 SCC 320 – Relied upon
       (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 65B and 7 – Tape recorded conversation – Evidentiary value – Certificate u/s 65B required in case of secondary evidence – Instantly the tape was original cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded – It was a primary evidence u/s 7 – Admissible in evidence without certificate u/s 65B. (Para 24)
       (2014) 10 SCC 473 – Relied upon
       (d) Constitution of India – Article 137 r/w Rule 1, Order 40, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Trail court and High Court considering and appreciating the evidence – Supreme Court also re-appreciating the entire evidence in appeal – No apparent error on the face of the record – Evidence cannot be re-appreciated again under review jurisdiction. (Para 25)
       (1980) 2 SCC 684; (1983) 3 SCC 470 – Referred
       Facts of the case:
       The trial court convicted both the applicants Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and Jasvir Singh @ Jassa as well as one Smt. Sonia wife of Jasvir Singh and awarded death sentence to all the three accused under Section 302 and 364A IPC.
       The High Court accepted the Murder Reference No.1 of 2007 and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court.
       Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals of Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh whereas death sentence awarded to Smt. Sonia, the third accused was converted into life imprisonment. Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh filed Review Petition (Crl.) which were dismissed by circulation.
       After the Constitution Bench judgment in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq, Criminal M.P. were filed by the applicants for reopening the Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.192-193 of 2011.
       Finding of the Court:
       No ground made out for review of the matter.
       Result: Review petitions rejected.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. Delay condoned. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the applicants for reopening the Review Petition (Crl.) Nos. 192-193 of 2016 in Criminal Appeal Nos.1396-1397 of 2008 on the basis of Constitution Bench judgment in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court Of India And Others, 2014(9) SCC 737, by which judgment liberty was granted to those petitioners whose review applications seeking review of judgment of this Court confirming death sentence were rejected by circulation but death sentences were not executed.

2. Both the applicants Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and Jasvir Singh @ Jassa were tried for offences under Section 302, 364A, 201 and 120B IPC. The trial court vide its judgment dated 20th December, 2016/21st December, 2016 convicted both the applicants as well as one Smt. Sonia wife of Jasvir Singh and awarded death sentence to all the three accused under Section 302 and 364A IPC. Criminal Appeal No.105-DB of 2007 was filed before the High Court by all the accused against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Murder Reference No. 1 of 2007 was also made by the Sessions Judge before the High Court seeking confirmation of death sentence. Both Murder Reference No.1 of 2007 as well as Criminal Appeal No.105-DB of 2007 were heard and disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court dated 30.05.2008. The High Court accepted the Murder Reference No.1 of 2007 and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court resultantly Criminal Appeal No.105-DB/2007 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High court dated 30.05.2008 Criminal Appeal Nos.1396-1397 of 2008 were filed by the accused. This court heard the criminal appeals. Two Judge Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 25.01.2010 dismissed the criminal appeals of Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh whereas death sentence awarded to Smt. Sonia, the third accused was converted into life imprisonment. Vikram Singh and Jasvir Singh filed Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.192-193 of 2011 which review petitions were dismissed by circulation vide order dated 20.04.2011 by two-Judge Bench which had heard the criminal appeals on the ground of delay as well as on merits. As noted above after the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq (supra) Criminal M.P.Nos.16673-16674 of 2016 and 16675-16676 of 2016 were filed by the applicants for reopening the Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.192-193 of 2011.

3. Learned counsel for the parties were permitted to advance their oral submissions on 24.10.2016 in support of Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.192-193 of 2011.

4. We have heard Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for Vikram Singh whereas Shri Tripurari Ray has been heard for applicant No.2. Shri V. Madhukar, learned Additional Advocate General has been heard for the State of Punjab and Haryana and Ms. Anvita Cowshish, learned counsel for complainant.

5. The applicants by their review petitions are seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 25.01.2010 by which judgment criminal appeals filed by the applicants were dismissed and death sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court was maintained by dismissing the appeals.

6. Before we proceed to examine the review petitions, it is necessary to note the ambit, scope and parameters of the review jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Article 137 of the Constitution of India provides for review of judgments or orders of this Court in following words:

"137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.- Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it."

8. Order 40 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 deals with the review, Rule 1 of which provides:

"1. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 632

IMPORTANT POINTSOriginal audio cassettes are primary evidence u/s 7 of Evidence Act and hence do not require certificate u/s 65B. Review petitions can be entertained only on ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, and the error should have lead to miscarriage of justice.

Cases Referred (10)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Original audio cassettes are primary evidence u/s 7 of Evidence Act and hence do not require certificate u/s 65B.
Review petitions can be entertained only on ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, and the error should have lead to miscarriage of justice.