REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) D NO.44603 OF 2019

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.609-610 OF 2017

AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH                  ...Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                                            …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This  Review Petition  has  been  preferred  by  the  petitioner-

accused Akshay Kumar Singh who was the cleaner of the bus to

review  the  judgment  dated  05.05.2017  passed  by  this  Court  in

Criminal Appeal Nos.609-610 of 2017 in and by which this Court

confirmed  the  conviction  and  death  penalty  imposed  upon  the

petitioner by the trial court as well as by the High Court.  

2. In  the  evening  of  16.12.2012,  the  prosecutrix  (since

deceased) had gone for a movie with her friend, PW-1. At about

08:45 pm, both the prosecutrix and PW-1 left the movie theatre and

reached  Munirka  bus  stand  and  they  boarded  the  bus  bearing

1

registration  No.  DL-1PC-0149.  This  bus  was  being  driven  by

accused Ram Singh (since  deceased)  and  the  petitioner-Akshay

Kumar  Singh  @  Thakur  was  the  helper  thereof.  The  accused

misbehaved with the prosecutrix and have committed gang rape of

the prosecutrix in the moving bus. They also committed unnatural

offence and inserted iron rod in the private parts of the prosecutrix.

The accused persons had beaten up PW-1 with iron rods and his

clothes  were  torn  off.  The  accused  also  took  away  all  the

belongings of the prosecutrix and PW-1 and thereafter, threw the

prosecutrix  and PW-1 in  a  naked/semi  naked condition from the

moving bus.  The prosecutrix  was treated at  Safdarjung Hospital,

Delhi where her three dying declarations were recorded. Since the

condition  of  the  prosecutrix  became critical,  she  was  shifted  for

further  treatment  on  27.12.2012  to  Mt.  Elizabeth  Hospital,

Singapore where, she died on 29.12.2012.  

3. The trial court held that the complicity and guilt of the accused

were proved and convicted the petitioner and other accused under

Sections 120-B IPC, 376 (2)(g) read with Section 120-B IPC, 377

read with Section 120-B IPC, 365 and 366 read with Section 120-B

IPC, 395 read with Section 120-B IPC, 397 read with Section 120-B

IPC, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, 307 read with Section 120-B

2

IPC,  412  and  201  read  with  Section  120-B  IPC  and  inter  alia

imposed  death  penalty  upon  them.  Death  penalty  and  other

sentence of  imprisonment imposed upon them was confirmed by

the High Court. The accused had filed Criminal Appeal Nos.609-610

of 2017 before this Court.

4. Criminal  appeal  filed  by  the  petitioner  had  earlier  been

dismissed  by  this  Court  vide  its  judgment  dated  05.05.2017  in

Mukesh and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2017) 6

SCC  1  on  the  basis  of  the  following  evidence  which  firmly

established  the  presence  of  the  petitioner  at  the  scene  of  the

incident  and  his  involvement  in  the  commission  of  rape  on  the

prosecutrix :-

(i) evidence  of  PW-1/injured  eye-witness  who  spoke  about  the

occurrence  in  the  bus;  PW-1  identified  the  petitioner  in  the  TIP

conducted on 26.12.2012 as one of the persons who came out of the

driver’s cabin from the bus and started abusing PW-1 and later, took

the prosecutrix to the back side of the bus and raped her;  

(ii) three dying declarations of the prosecutrix of which, in the second

dying  declaration  (ExPW27/A),  prosecutrix  stated  the  incident  in

detail  and  that  the  accused  persons  were  calling  “Ram  Singh,

Thakur,  Raju,  Mukesh,  Pawan  and  Vinay  and  in  the  third  dying

declaration, the prosecutrix wrote the names of the accused “Ram

Singh,  Mukesh,  Vinay,  Akshay,  Vipin,  Raju”  including  petitioner-

Akshay Kumar Singh and other accused;  

3

(iii) evidence of PW-81-Dinesh Yadav, owner of the bus in which he has

stated that accused Ram Singh was the driver and petitioner was the

helper in the bus in which the incident occurred;  

(iv) Ex.PW71/C, report of PW-71-Dr. Ashith B. Acharaya who opined that

one bite mark found on the prosecutrix  could have been possibly

caused  by  the  petitioner;  three  other  bite  marks  were  caused  by

accused Ram Singh;

(v) DNA evidence – DNA profile generated from the blood-stained jeans

and  banian of  the  petitioner  recovered at  the  behest  of  petitioner

matched with the DNA profile of the prosecutrix; another set of DNA

profile generated from jeans pant of the petitioner matched with the

DNA profile of PW-1 and DNA profile generated from breast swab of

the victim which was found consistent with the DNA profile of the

blood of the petitioner;  

(vi) recovery  of  metro  card  and  silver  ring  of  PW-1  recovered  at  the

behest of the petitioner and identified by PW-1.

5. We have heard Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for

the  petitioner-accused  No.3.   We  have  also  heard  Mr.  Tushar

Mehta,  learned  Solicitor  General  appearing  for  NCT  of  Delhi

assisted by Ms. Supriya Juneja, learned counsel.

6. The learned counsel Mr. A.P. Singh had taken us through the

various grounds urged in the review petition and prayed for review

of the judgment.  The learned Solicitor  General Mr.  Tushar Mehta

submitted that  the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the

defence  plea  has  been  considered  threadbare  both  by  the  trial

court,  High  Court  and  also  by  this  Court.  The  learned  Solicitor

4

General  submitted  that  upon  appreciation  of  evidence,  the  High

Court and the Supreme Court upheld the findings as to the guilt of

the accused and also the sentence.  The learned Solicitor General

also submitted that the very same grounds were raised in the review

petition  by the co-accused and the same was dismissed by this

Court vide judgments in  Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)  (2018) 8

SCC 149 and  Vinay Sharma and another v. State (NCT of Delhi)

and others (2018) 8 SCC 186.

7. In this review petition, the petitioner prays for review of the

judgment  dated 05.05.2017. In  the review petition before us,  the

petitioner has again sought to assail the merits of the prosecution

case and the findings rendered thereon which cannot be permitted.  

8. It is no longer  res integra that scope of review is limited and

review cannot be entertained except in cases of error apparent on

the  face  of  the  record.  Article  137  of  the  Constitution  of  India

empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced

or made, subject, of course, to the provisions of any law made by

the  Parliament  or  any  rule  made  under  Article  145  of  the

Constitution of India. Order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules,

2013 dealing with review reads as follows:-

“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

5

mentioned  in  Order  47  Rule  1  of  the  Code,  and  in  a  criminal

proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of

the record.”

As per the Supreme Court Rules, review in the criminal proceedings

is permissible only on the ground of error apparent on the face of

the record.

9. The  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  under  Article  137  of  the

Constitution of India has been clearly stated in Sow Chandra Kante

and Another v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674, wherein this Court

held as under:-

“A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is

proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave

error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through

different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over

ineffectually  covered  ground  or  minor  mistakes  of  inconsequential

import are obviously insufficient.”

10. Review is a not a rehearing of the appeal over again. In a

review petition, it is not for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence

and reach a different conclusion. The scope of review jurisdiction

has been elaborately considered by this Court in number of cases

and the well settled principles have been reiterated time and again.

In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320, the

Supreme Court held as under:-

6

“17. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the

evidence  and  reach  a  different  conclusion,  even  if  that  is  possible.

Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in

a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the

face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court in Kerala

SEB v.  Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd.  (2005) 6 SCC 654

held as under: (SCC p. 656, para 10)

“10. …  In  a  review  petition  it  is  not  open  to  this  Court  to

reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even

if  that  is  possible.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  Board  at  best

sought  to  impress  us  that  the  correspondence  exchanged

between the parties did not support  the conclusion reached by

this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted

to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence

on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on

appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding

of  fact  and  reaches  a  conclusion,  that  conclusion  cannot  be

assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an

error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin

thereto. It  has not been contended before us that there is any

error apparent on the face of  the record.  To permit  the review

petitioner  to  argue  on  a  question  of  appreciation  of  evidence

would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in

disguise.”

11. Considering  the  scope  of  review  under  Article  137  of  the

Constitution  of  India  and  observing  that  normally  in  a  criminal

proceeding,  review applications  cannot  be entertained  except  on

the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, in  Vikram

7

Singh alias Vicky Walia and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

(2017) 8 SCC 518, the Supreme Court held as under:-

“23. In view of the above, it is clear that scope, ambit and parameters of

review jurisdiction are well defined. Normally in a criminal proceeding,

review applications cannot be entertained except on the ground of error

apparent on the face of the record. Further, the power given to this Court

under Article 137 is wider and in an appropriate case can be exercised to

mitigate a manifest injustice. By review application an applicant cannot

be allowed to reargue the appeal on the grounds which were urged at

the  time of  the  hearing  of  the  criminal  appeal.  Even  if  the  applicant

succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the

conviction or sentence of the accused that is not a sufficient ground for

review. This Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to review only when a

glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in the earlier decision due

to judicial fallibility. There has to be an error apparent on the face of the

record leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction

under Article 137 read with Order 40 Rule 1. There has to be a material

error manifest on the face of the record with results in the miscarriage of

justice.”

12. A review of the judgment is permitted only when it is shown

that  judgment  suffers  from  error  apparent  on  the  face  of  the

judgment.  In  P.N  Iswara  Iyer  and  Others  v.  Registrar,  Supreme

Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680, while considering Order XL Rule 1

of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, the Constitution Bench of the

Supreme Court observed that Order XL Rule 1 affords the wider set

of grounds for review of orders in civil proceedings, but limits the

8

grounds vis-à-vis  criminal  proceedings  to  errors  apparent  on  the

face of the judgment.  

13. Applying the above parameters of the review jurisdiction, it is

to  be  seen  whether  the  petitioner  has  made  out  any  ground

indicating error apparent on the face of the record warranting review

of our judgment dated 05.05.2017.

14. Even at the outset,  it  is to be pointed out that the grounds

raised by the petitioner-accused in this review petition are identical

to  that  of  the  grounds  raised  by  the  co-accused  in  their  review

petitions.  Those grounds urged by the co-accused in their review

petitions were considered and rejected by this Court in  Mukesh v.

State (NCT of  Delhi)  (2018)  8 SCC 149 and  Vinay Sharma and

another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2018) 8 SCC 186.

15. At this juncture, we would like to point out two grounds raised

by the petitioner in this review petition viz.,  (i)  futility of awarding

death sentence in Kalyug, where a person is no better than a dead

body; and (ii) that the level of pollution in Delhi NCR is so great that

life is short anyhow and everyone is aware of what is happening in

Delhi NCR in this regard and while so, there is no reason why death

penalty should be awarded. According to the petitioner, in view of

the above, he should be spared of the death sentence. We find it

9

unfortunate that such grounds have been raised in the matter as

serious as the present case.

16. The petitioner has also raised the plea that death penalty is

the ultimate denial of human rights and that it violates the right to

life; it also goes against the principle of non-violence. In the review

petition, the petitioner has put forth the general  case against  the

capital punishment by stating that only the poor and downtrodden

are more likely to be sentenced with death sentence. Such general

contentions put forth against the capital punishment cannot be gone

into in this review petition.

17. The  petitioner  has  raised  the  plea  as  to  the  lack  of

professional skills of the investigating agency and the need for an

unbiased  investigation.   In  the  petition,  general  allegations  have

been made against  the investigating agency alleging extortion of

confession  and  then  create  evidence  to  falsely  implicate  the

accused.   The  grounds  raised  in  the  petition  alleging  improper

investigation and manipulation of evidence are too general and not

specific.  It is to be pointed out that each and every point raised by

the petitioner-accused assailing the course of investigation was well

considered by the trial  court which we have gone through at  the

10

time of hearing of the criminal appeals.  The same points cannot be

urged again and again.

18. So far as the dying declaration is concerned, the petitioner

has raised the same contention which was raised earlier  that  is,

according  to  the  petitioner,  only  the  first  dying  declaration

(Ex.PW49/A)  recorded  by  PW-49-Dr.  Rashmi  Ahuja  where  the

prosecutrix has neither named nor mentioned the name of any of

the accused persons,  has to  be  relied upon.   Contention  of  the

petitioner  is  that  the  second  dying  declaration  (Ex.PW27/A)

recorded by PW-24-Dr. Usha Chaturvedi, SDM on 21.12.2012 could

not have been recorded as the victim was under the life support and

she could not have given four pages of dying declaration. Further

contention  of  the  petitioner  is  that  the  third  dying  declaration

recorded by PW-30-Pawan Kumar, Metropolitan Magistrate where

the  victim  has  named  the  petitioner  and  other  accused  was  a

tutored version and cannot be relied upon.

19. Mr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

accused has contended that  investigation  in  the present  case is

flawed and unreliable.  It was submitted that insofar as the recording

of the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., manner of

arrest  of  the  accused,  conduct  of  test  identification  parade  are

11

doubtful.  Various contentions assailing the course of investigation

have been raised both before the trial court as well as before the

High Court and this Court which have been considered threadbare

and were rejected.  We do not find any merit in the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the investigation.

20. The  learned  counsel  submitted  that  because  of  the  media

pressure,  the  petitioner  and  other  accused  have  been  falsely

implicated.  Taking us through the averments made in para 3(f) of

the  review  petition,  the  learned  counsel  submitted  that  PW-1-

Awninder Pratap Singh had taken heavy amount as bribe and this

has been highlighted in some of the news channels which affect the

credibility  of the evidence of PW-1.  It  was submitted that in this

regard, Heera Lal Gupta, father of co-accused Pawan Gupta had

filed a complaint vide Diary No.26A on 02.11.2019 before SHO, PS

R.K.  Puram,  Sector-12,  New  Delhi  and  also  before  Deputy

Commissioner  of  Police,  Vasant  Vihar.   The  averments  made in

para 3(f) of the review petition are subsequent events unsupported

by any material.  In a criminal case, culpability or otherwise of the

accused are based upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the

prosecution and also the evidence adduced by the defence.  The

materials or the news emerging in the media and press as also the

12

news channels cannot be taken note of in arriving at a conclusion

on the culpability of the accused or to test credibility of the witness.

Such events cannot be urged as a ground for review.  

21. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused has

taken us through the averments made in para 3(g) of the review

petition and also the clippings of book titled “Black Warrant” written

by Sunil Gupta, a former law officer of Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi who

served long time in Tihar jail.  The learned counsel submitted that in

the book written by the above officer, the officer has expressed his

opinion that Ram Singh, accused No.1 was murdered in Tihar jail on

11.03.2013.  Here again, the opinion of the said former law officer

Sunil  Gupta  is  only  his  opinion  which  is  not  supported  by  any

material.  If the former law officer had any doubt regarding death of

Ram Singh, the said officer could have offered himself to appear as

a defence witness or he could have filed an affidavit before any of

the courts, either trial court or High Court or before the Supreme

Court.   The opinion  of  the  said  officer  Sunil  Gupta which is  not

supported by any material,  cannot be a ground for reviewing our

judgment.

22. As  pointed  out  in  the  judgment,  there  were  three  dying

declarations recorded from the prosecutrix:-  

13

(i) in the first dying declaration (Ex.PW-49/A) recorded by Dr. Rashmi

Ahuja  (PW-49)  on  16.12.2012  at  11.15  pm,  the  prosecutrix  has

stated that more than two men committed rape on her after which,

she does not remember the sexual intercourse; the prosecutrix also

stated that she was subjected to unnatural sex and she was bitten

over her lips, cheeks and breast;  

(ii) in the second dying declaration (Ex.PW-27/A) recorded by PW-27-

Usha Chaturvedi, SDM on 21.12.2012 at 09.00 pm, the prosecutrix

has narrated the entire incident in great detail, specifying the role of

each of the accused, rape committed by number of persons, insertion

of  iron  rod  in  her  private  parts,  description  of  the  bus,  robbery

committed and throwing of both the victims out of the moving bus in

naked  condition.  Prosecutrix  also  stated  that  the  accused  were

calling each other “Ram Singh, Thakur, Raju, Mukesh, Pawan and

Vinay”; and  

(iii) in the third dying declaration (Ex.PW-30/D) recorded on 25.12.2012

at  1.00  p.m  by  PW-30-Pawan  Kumar,  Metropolitan  Magistrate  by

putting multiple choice questions to the victim and getting answers by

gestures and writing. While giving third dying declaration, prosecutrix

revealed the names of the accused by writing in her own handwriting

viz.  “Ram Singh, Mukesh, Vinay, Akshay, Vipin, Raju”.

This Court considered the three dying declarations in the light of the

well-settled principles and found that the multiple dying declarations

inspire the confidence of  the Court  and are credible.  The above

contentions were earlier raised and were considered by this Court in

paras  (148) to  (164),  (186) to  (192) and  (395) to  (417) of  the

judgment and rejected.  While so, the petitioner cannot raise the

same plea.

14

23. So far as the plea of alibi, contention of the petitioner is that

he was not present in Delhi on the night of 16.12.2012 and that he

accompanied his sister-in-law Sarita Devi (DW-15) along with her

son Kundan. He boarded Mahabodhi Express on 15.12.2012 and

left for Aurangabad, Bihar from Platform No.9, New Delhi Railway

Station.  Contention of the petitioner that the evidence adduced by

the  petitioner  to  prove  his  presence  in  the  Karmalahang,  P.S.

Thandva, District-Aurangabad, that is the evidence of DW-1, local

auto driver, DW-12-Sarju Singh who has spoken about the petitioner

reaching his house in his native village on 16.12.2012 and DW-13-

Rajmohan, father-in-law of petitioner and DW-14-Punita Devi, wife

of  petitioner  who have deposed that  the petitioner  came to their

house  in  the  native  village  Karmalahang  along  with  Sarita  Devi

(DW-15), would show that the petitioner was not present in Delhi on

the night of 16.12.2012.  It was submitted that though the defence

has showed booked ticket details of Mahabodhi Express from New

Delhi to Aurangabad on 15.12.2012 to prove the departure of the

petitioner,  this  aspect  was  not  appreciated  by  the  court  and  the

petitioner’s plea of alibi was erroneously turned down.

24. To substantiate the plea of  alibi, the petitioner has examined

DW-11-Chavinder, Auto Driver who has taken the petitioner and his

15

family  members  from Anugrah Narayan Railway  Station,  District-

Aurangabad, Bihar to his native village, Karmalahang.  DW-12-Sarju

Singh, DW-13-Rajmohan, father-in-law of petitioner and DW-14-wife

of the petitioner have spoken about the presence of petitioner in the

village. DW-15-Sister-in-law of petitioner whom the petitioner claims

had accompanied her on 15.12.2012. Considering the evidence of

DWs 12, 14 and 15 in Para (256), this Court has observed that DWs

12, 14 and 15 are all relatives of accused Akshay Kumar Singh alias

Thakur and that as observed by both the courts, they tried to wriggle

the petitioner out of the messy situation as is the natural instinct of

the family members.  

25. The  plea  of  alibi taken  by  the  petitioner-accused  and  the

evidence adduced by the petitioner  has been well-considered by

this Court in Paras (247) to (269).  Upon appreciation of evidence,

this Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and the High Court

rejecting the plea of  alibi  and held that plea of  alibi taken by the

petitioner is an afterthought. We do not find any error apparent on

the face of the record in consideration of evidence and rejection of

the plea of alibi. The appreciation of evidence in rejecting the plea of

alibi  does not  suffer  from any error  apparent  on the face of  the

record and this cannot be urged as a ground for review.

16

26. The next contention urged by the petitioner is the use of iron

rod and absence of injury to the uterus on the alleged insertion of

the iron rod in the private parts of the victim.  Elaborate submissions

were  made  on  the  alleged  use  of  iron  rod  and  the  same  was

rejected by well-considered reasonings in Paras (193) to (209) and

(413) to  (422) and  the  said  findings  thereon  supported  by  the

opinion of the medical expert do not suffer from any error.

27. The other  contentions  viz.  (i)  CCTV footage  of  Hotel  Delhi

Airport was not properly examined; (ii)  the bus bearing registration

No.DL-1PC-0149 was falsely  implicated;  (iii)  PW-81-owner  of  the

bus was in judicial custody for six months before his examination in

the court and he was so detained in custody only to bring pressure

upon  him  to  depose  in  favour  of  the  prosecution;  and  (iv)  the

petitioner-accused  was  photographed  earlier  and  the  same  was

shown to PW-1 to enable him to identify the petitioner-accused in

the  test  identification  parade.  These  contentions  and  other

contentions assailing the case of  the prosecution were all  raised

earlier and upon consideration of evidence, the same were rejected

by this Court.  The review petition is not for re-hearing of the appeal

on reappreciation of the evidence over and over again.  A party is

17

not entitled to seek review of the judgment merely for the purpose of

rehearing of the appeal and a fresh decision.

28. On the question of award of death sentence, the Court has

considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In Paras

(322) to (368) and (511) to (518) of the judgment, while considering

the  question  of  death  sentence,  opportunity  was  granted  to  the

petitioner accused and also other accused to file their affidavits as

to  their  family  background,  criminal  antecedents,  possibility  of

reformation and such other relevant factors. The petitioner accused

through his counsel, Mr. A.P. Singh has filed an affidavit stating his

family background and stating that he has no criminal antecedent

and that his case is not falling under “the rarest of rare cases” to

affirm the death sentence,  which contention was considered and

rejected.  The  aggravating  and  mitigating  circumstance  and  the

affidavit  filed  by  the  petitioner  was  considered  in  detail  in  Para

(324). The  contention  urged  by  the  counsel  for  the  parties  and

learned amicus curiae were considered in paras (327) to (368) and

(511) to  (518) of  the  judgment  and  the  court  observed  that  the

background  and  family  circumstances  cannot  be  taken  as  the

mitigating  circumstances.  Considering  the  manner  in  which  the

offence  was  committed,  in  the  judgment  dated  05.05.2017,  this

Court held that the case is falling within “the rarest of rare cases”.

18

We do not find that these findings suffer from any error apparent on

the  face  of  the  record.  The  mitigating  circumstances  elaborated

upon by the defence by way of highlighting the comparatively young

age  of  the  convicts,  their  socio-economic  background,  their

unblemished antecedents  and their  chances  of  reformation,  fade

into insignificance.  In light of the aggravating circumstances and

considering that the case falls within the category of “rarest of rare

cases”, the death penalty is confirmed.

29. Insofar  as  the  submission  of  learned  counsel  for  the

petitioner-accused that the death penalty has been abolished in UK

and several other Latin American countries and Australian States,

the same contentions were raised by Mr. A.P. Singh in the earlier

review petitions and the same were dismissed.  [vide  Mukesh v.

State (NCT of  Delhi) (2018) 8 SCC 149 and  Vinay Sharma and

another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others (2018) 8 SCC 186]

30. Dismissal of the review petitions filed by the co-accused:

The  review  petition  filed  by  the  co-accused  were  dismissed  as

having no  merit,  on 09.07.2018  Mukesh v.  State  (NCT of  Delhi)

(2018) 8 SCC 149. The court observed that the submissions urged

by the other accused were already considered while delivering the

19

judgment and were rejected. The same points were earlier raised in

the review petitions filed by other co-accused. The grounds raised in

the present review petition are almost repetition of the arguments

raised in the earlier review petitions which were rejected and in our

view, cannot be raised repeatedly.

31. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in

the appreciation of evidence or the findings of the judgment dated

05.05.2017. None of the grounds raised in the review petition call

for review of the judgment dated 05.05.2017. The review petition is

dismissed.  

..……………………..J.                                                                        [R. BANUMATHI]

.………………………..J.                                                                       [ASHOK BHUSHAN]

....……………………..J.                                                                            [A. S. BOPANNA]

New Delhi; December 18, 2019.

20