IMPORTANT POINTS
Application to review should not be lightly entertained.
A review petition can be entertained only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in the earlier judgment.
A review petition can be entertained only on ground of error apparent on the face of the record. Review is not rehearing of an original matter.

JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

These review petitions have been filed by two applicants Vinay Sharmaaccused No.1 and Pawan Kumar Guptaaccused No.2 to review the judgment of this Court dated 05.05.2017 by which judgment this Court had dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the High Court confirming the death reference and dismissing the criminal appeals filed by the petitioners against the order of conviction and award of death sentence.

2. Both the petitioners were tried for rape and murder of a 23 years' age lady Nirbhaya (changed name). The trial court convicted the petitioners along with three others and awarded death sentence to all the four accused. Death reference No.6 of 2013 Was sent by the trial court to the High Court. Separate criminal appeals were also filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment of the trial court. Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 13.03.2014 confirmed the death penalty to all the four convicts including petitioners, Vinay Sharma, appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2017, Pawan Kumar Gupta, appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal Nos.608 of 2017. The appeals were dismissed by the judgment of this Court dated 05.05.2017. The petitioners aggrieved by the said judgment dated 05.05.2017 by which all the appeals were dismissed have filed these review petitions praying for reviewing the judgment dated 05.05.2017.

3. We have heard the learned counsel, Shri A.P. Singh appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the State.

4. Shri A.P. Singh learned counsel for the peititoners in support of the review petitions has urged several grounds. Shri Singh submits that death penalty in India needs to be abolished. He submits that there are several reasons for opposing death penalty which broadly speaking, they fall under two categories, moral and practical. This also goes against the principle of non violence that India has advocated for decades. In the year 1966, the Bill introducing death penalty abolition was passed by the House of Parliament in England. He further submitted that in a large number of countries death penalty has been abolished. In his submission he has referred the names of several Latin American countries and several Australian States.

5. Apart from above, several other contentions have been advanced by Shri A.P. Singh which we proceed to note in seriatim. Shri Singh submits that investigation and trial has been carried out with the sole purpose of survival of the prosecuting agency. The investigation is engaged in maladroit effort to book the vulnerable and the innocent so as to disguise and cover there inefficiency to catch the real culprits. The political class is using investigating agencies as tools for partisan political objective.

6. PW.1, during his crossexamination was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A qua the factum of not disclosing the use of iron rod, the description of Bus, the name of assailants either in MLC Ex.PW51/A or in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. The Bus, Ex.P1 has been falsely implicated in the present case. CCTV footage was not properly examined to check all possible Buses plying on the said route. The Bus was taken to Tyagraj Stadium instead of the Police Station to avoid the media and to facilitate the planting of evidence.

7. That the three dying declarations have been contrived and deserved to be kept out of consideration and the dying declarations do not inspire confidence for variations in them relating to the number of assailants, the description of Bus, the identity of accused etc. If at all any dying declaration is to be relied on, it is first dying declaration made on 16.12.2012 and recorded by PW49, Dr. Rashmi Ahuja, which dying declaration only states that there were 4 to 5 persons in the Bus.

8. In the statement recorded in MLC Ex.PW49/A prosecutrix has neither named any of the accused nor mentioned the factum of iron rod being used by the accused persons. The prosecutrix coul