Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (7) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (7) TMI 1460 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Delay in reopening the Review Petition.
2. Scope and parameters of the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
3. Admissibility of tape-recorded conversations without a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
4. Conviction under Section 302 IPC versus Section 304A IPC.
5. Relevance of the disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh.
6. Significance of fingerprint evidence.
7. Appropriateness of the death penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Reopening the Review Petition:
The judgment condoned the delay in filing the criminal miscellaneous petitions for reopening the Review Petition Nos. 192-193 of 2016.

2. Scope and Parameters of the Review Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
The judgment elaborated on Article 137 of the Constitution, which allows the Supreme Court to review its judgments. The Court emphasized that review is permissible only on grounds of "an error apparent on the face of the record" as per Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The judgment cited multiple precedents to underline that review is not a rehearing but a mechanism to correct glaring omissions, patent mistakes, or grave errors that result in a miscarriage of justice.

3. Admissibility of Tape-Recorded Conversations Without a Certificate Under Section 65B of the Evidence Act:
The applicants contended that the tape-recorded conversation lacked a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, thus should not be admissible. The Court clarified that the cassette containing the recorded conversation was primary evidence and did not require a certificate under Section 65B. The judgment referenced Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Ors. (2014) to support that primary electronic records are admissible without such certification.

4. Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Versus Section 304A IPC:
The applicants argued that the death caused by chloroform and pentazocine poisoning should be classified under Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence) instead of Section 302 IPC (murder). The Court rejected this argument, stating that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was based on comprehensive evidence and there was no apparent error on the face of the record.

5. Relevance of the Disclosure Statement of Jasvir Singh:
The applicants claimed that the disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh, which led to the recovery of the dead body, did not implicate Vikram Singh. The Court dismissed this contention, noting that the trial court and the High Court had marshaled ocular evidence proving Vikram Singh’s involvement in the crime.

6. Significance of Fingerprint Evidence:
The applicants argued that the fingerprints found on the cars were not significant as the cars belonged to Vikram Singh. The Court clarified that it never stated the cars belonged to Vikram Singh but that his fingerprints were found on them, which was significant evidence of his involvement in the crime.

7. Appropriateness of the Death Penalty:
The applicants contested the death penalty, referencing Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab. The Court reiterated that it had already considered the mitigating and aggravating factors, and the High Court had drawn a balance-sheet which was adopted by the Supreme Court. The judgment found no error apparent on the record in affirming the death sentence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, after carefully considering the submissions, concluded that the review petitions did not raise any valid grounds for review of the judgment dated 25.01.2010. Consequently, the review applications were rejected.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates