Case Note & Summary
The review petition was filed by Sudam @ Rahul Kaniram Jadhav against the final judgment and order dated 04.07.2011 of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 185-186 of 2011, which had confirmed his conviction under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The case arose from the discovery of the bodies of four children and an unidentified woman (later identified as Anita) in a village pond on 21.08.2007. The prosecution's case was built on circumstantial evidence, including the motive of the accused (dispute over the petitioner's marriage to PW-6 Muktabai), the last seen evidence of PW-8 Prahlad, extra-judicial confessions made to PW-9 Ishwar and PW-6 Muktabai, the petitioner's abscondence, and his failure to explain the homicidal deaths. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner, and the High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence, holding it to be a rarest of rare case. The Supreme Court in appeal confirmed the same. The review petition was initially dismissed by circulation on 26.07.2012, but was reopened pursuant to the decision in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737, which required oral hearing in death sentence review cases. The petitioner's counsel, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, argued for acquittal, contending that the courts had erroneously appreciated the circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen evidence (pointing out that PW-8's statement was recorded before the bodies were discovered), the extra-judicial confession to PW-9 (recorded after a delay of over three months), and the confession to PW-6 (which the Trial Court had discarded due to contradictions and lack of call record corroboration). The Supreme Court held that review proceedings cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence; the scope of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such error in the earlier judgments. The court also clarified that the permission to raise additional grounds in Md. Arif @ Ashfaq did not permit re-appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Scope of Review - Article 137 of the Constitution of India, Order XL Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise; re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. The court can only correct miscarriage of justice caused by an error apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 6.2-6.5) B) Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Evidence - Testimony of PW-8 - Inherent improbabilities in timeline (statement recorded before discovery of bodies) do not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 7) C) Evidence - Extra-judicial Confession - Testimony of PW-9 - Delay in recording statement (30.11.2007) and lack of timeline do not render the confession unreliable for review purposes. (Para 7.1) D) Evidence - Extra-judicial Confession - Testimony of PW-6 - Contradictions in cross-examination and non-corroboration by call records were already considered; no error apparent. (Para 7.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the conviction and death sentence under Sections 201 and 302 IPC.
Final Decision
Review petition dismissed. The court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and review proceedings cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen evidence
- Extra-judicial confession
- Death sentence
- Rarest of rare cases
