VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 177, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 177 
VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
(Criminal M.P. Nos.16673-16674 of2016and16675-16676 of2016) 
In 
(Review Petition (Cr!.) Nos.192-193 of2011) 
In 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1396-1397 of2008) 
JULY07,2017 
fDIPAK MISRA, R. BANUMATHI AND 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J 
B 
c 
Constitution of India - Art. 13 7 - Review of judgments or 
orders by the Supreme Court - On facts, conviction of three 4/ss. 
302, 364A, 201 and 120B and sentenced to death - Supreme Court 
upheld the death sentence of two, however commuted the death 
D 
sentence of lady co~accused to life imprisonment - Review 
petitions - Held: This Court while affirming the judgment of the 
High Court, found no error apparent on the record - Submissions 
raised in the review petition do not raise any ground for review -
Submission that tape recorded conversation was relied on without 
there being any certificate u!s. 65B as such not a valid evidence, 
E 
cannot be accepted - Tape recorded conversation was not secondary 
· evidence which required certificate uls. 65B, since it was the original 
cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded - Submission that 
the death was caused due to overdose of chlorofr;rm and pentazocine 
poisoning, as such the conviction ought to be uls. 304A and not u/ F . 
s. 302 cannot be accepted - Conviction of the applicants was based 
on cogent, ocular and medical evidence and there was no apparent 
error on the face of the record in recording
conviction of the 
applicants ·uls. 302 and 364A - Penal Code, 1860 - 302, 364A, 
201and120B - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 65B. 
Art. 13 7 - Power of review - Scope and ambit of.-
Explained - Or. 40 r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 
G 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 65B - Admissibility of electronic records -
Reliance on the tape recorded conversation - Requirement of 
certificate u/s. 65B - Held: For admission of secondary evidence H 
177
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A of electronic record a certificate as contemplated by s. 65B is a 
mandatory condition - Tape recorded conversation was original 
cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded, thus, not secondary 
evidence which required certificate u/s. 65B. 
B 
Rejecting the review applications, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 This Court has constitutional power to review 
its judgment as granted by Article 137 of the Constitution which 
is subject to Supreme Court Rules, 1966. As per Rule 1 of Order 
40 an application for review in a criminal proceeding can be 
entertained on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the 
c record. Granting power of review to this Court by the Constitution 
is in recognition of the universal principle that the power of review 
is part of all judicial system. Rule 1 of Order 40 of Supreme Court 
Rules, 1966 provides for the procedure and manner in which the 
power of review can be exercised by this Court. Under Order 40 
Rule 1 no application for review can be entertained except on 
D the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. Although 
the power of review granted to this Court is wider but normally 
and ordinarily the review in a criminal case has to be on the 
grounds as enumerated in Rule 1 of Order 40. (Paras 9, 10, 171 
[183-E-G; 189-C, DI 
E 
F 
1.2 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 re-argue 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. 
G This Court shall exercise Its jurisdiction to review only when a 
glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in earlier decision 
due to judicial fallibility. There has to be error apparent on the 
face of the record leading miscarriage of justice to exercise the 
review jurisdiction under Article 137 read with Order 40 Rule 1. 
H There has to be a material error manifest on the face of the record
VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
179 
. with results in the miscarriage of the justice. [Para 21) (193-H; 
A 
194-A-C) 
2.1 The conversation on the landline phone of the 
complainant situate in a shop was recorded by the complainant. 
The same cassette containing conversation by which ransom call 
was made on the landline phone was handed over by the B 
complainant in original to the Police. This Court in its judgment 
noted that the cassette on which the conversations had been 
recorded on the. landline was handed over by RV to S.I. and on a 
replay of the tape, the conversation was clearly audible and was 
heard by the Police. The tape recorded conversation was not 
secondary evidence which required certificate under Section 65B 
C 
of the Evidence Act, 1872, since it was the original cassette by 
which ransom call was tape-recorded, there cannot be any dispute 
that for admission of secondary evidence of electronic record a 
certificate as contemplated by Section 65B is a mandatory 
condition. [Paras 23, 24) [194-F-H; 195-A-B) 
D 
·2.2 It was submitted that the death was caused due to 
overdose of chloroform and pentazocine poisoning, hence, the 
conviction ought to have been under Secti.on 304A IPC and not 
under Section 302 IPC. The conviction against the applicants 
under Section 302 and 364A IPC was recorded after considering 
E 
entire evidence on record. This Court while dismissing the 
criminal appeals and affirming the death Reference appreciated
the entire evidence and approved the decision of the trial court 
and the High Court. The conviction of the applicant was based 
on cogent, ocular and medical evidence and in the review 
application applicants again asked this Court to re-appraise the 
F 
evidence and come to a different conclusion. There is no apparent 
error on the face of the. record in recording conviction of the 
applicants under Section 302 and 364A. [Para 251 1195-H; 196-
A•C) 
2.3 The submission that this Court had relied on the G 
disclosure statement of JS, which led to the recovery of the dead 
body which disclosure statement does not connect VS with the 
crime, cannot be accepted. The trial court as well as the High 
Court marshaled the ocular evidence by which role of VS was 
duly proved in commission of crime. The submission of the H
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A counsel for the appellant that since this Court recorded in the 
judgment that the said cars belong to the appellant, the existence 
of finger prints cannot by itself be of any significance with regard 
to his culpability in the crime; and that by relying on finger prints, 
this Court had committed an apparent error on the face of the 
record, is misconceived and incorrect. In the judgment this Court 
B 
never observed that Alto and Chevrolet cars belonged to the 
appellant. The statement of facts made in the judgment was to 
the effect that the finger prints from the Alto and Chevrolet cars 
belong to the appellants respectively. There is evidence of the 
owner of Alto car, PW.3, who had stated in his statement that the 
C car was lent by him to the applicant-VS. It was no one's case that 
Alto car belonged to the appellant. [Paras 26-28) [196-C-D, E-G; 
197-B) 
2.4 This Court referred to the various mitigating and 
aggravated factors, and recorded its conclusion that balance-sheet 
D has been drawn by the High Court of aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances which was duly adopted by this Court. No error 
apparent on the record is found on the record by this Court in 
affirming the judgment of the High Court. The submissions raised 
in the review petitions do not raise any ground for review of 
E judgment of this Court. [Paras 29, 31) [197-E, G) 
Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court Of 
India And Others, 2014
(9) SCC 737:(2014) 11 SCR 
1009; Sow Chandra Kante and another v. Sheikh Hai, 
(1975) 1 SCC 674; P.N. Eswara Iyer and others v. 
Registrar, Supreme Court of India (1980) 4 SCC 680; 
F 
Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan and 
others v. State through Superintendent of Police, CBI, 
(1999) 9 sec 323:(19991 3 Suppl. SCR 540; Lily 
Thomas and others v. Union of India and others (2000) 
6 SCC 224:(2000) 3 SCR 1081; Devender Pal Singh 
G 
v. State, NCT of Delhi and another (2003) 2 SCC 
501:(2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 332; Kamlesh Verma v. 
Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320:(2013) ll SCR 
25; Anvar P. V. v. P.K. Basheer and others, (2014) 10 
SCC 473:(2014) 11 SCR 399; Bachan Singh v. State . 
of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; Machhi Singh and others 
H
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
181 
v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470:[1983) 3 SCR 
A 
413 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2014) 11 SCR 1009 
referred to 
Para 1 
(1975) 1 sec 674 
referred to 
Para 10 
(1980) 4 sec 680 
referred to 
Para 11 
B 
[1999) 3 Suppl. SCR 540 
referred to· 
Para 12 
· [2000) 3 SCR1081 
referred to 
Para 13 
[2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 332 
referred to 
Para 15 
[2013r 11 SCR 25 
referred to 
Para 17 
c 
[2014) 11 SCR 399 
referred to 
Para 23 
(1980) 2 sec 684 
referred to 
Para 29 
[1983) 3 SCR 413 
referred to 
Para 29 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
M.P.Nos.16673-16674 of2016 and CriminalM.P. Nos.16675-16676 of D 
2016 in Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.192-193 of2011 in Criminal Appeal 
Nos.1396-1397 of2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30~05.2008 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.Appeal No. 105-DB/200.7. 
K. T. S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv., Tripurari Ray, B. S. Billowria, Raj Kamal, 
E 
Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Vijay Pratap Singh, Ms. Ambika, Ms. Shilpa Singh, 
Abid Bashir, S. K. Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. 
V. Madhukar, AAG. Ms. Anvita Cowshish, Ms. Lubna Naaz, 
' Kuldip Singh, Abhishek Singh, Rahul Shuam Bhandari, Sarvesh Singh, 
. Advs. for the Respondents~ 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. These criminal 
miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the applicants for reopening · 
the Review Petition (Cr!.) Nos. 192-193 of 2016 in Criminal
Appeal 
Nos.1396-1397 of2008 on the basis of Constitution Bench judgment in 
G 
Mohd. Arif alias Aslifaq versus Registrar, Supreme Court Of India 
And Others, 2014(9) SCC 73 7, by which judgment liberty was granted 
to those petitioners whose review applications seeking review of judgment 
of this Court confirming death sentencewere rejected by circulation but 
death sentences were not executed."''' 
{'.· 
H
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
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 20'h December, 
2016/21'' December, 2016 convicted both the applicants as well as one 
Smt. Sonia wife of Jasvir Singh and awarded death sentence to all the 
B three accused under Section 302 and 364AlPC. Criminal Appeal No.l 05-
DB of 2007 was filed before the High Court by all the accused against 
the judgment of Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Murder Reference No. l 
of 2007 was also made by the Sessions Judge before the High Court 
seeking confirmation of death sentence. Both Murder Reference No. l 
of2007 as well as Criminal Appeal No. l 05-DB of2007 were heard and 
C disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court dated 30.05.2008. 
The High Court accepted the Murder Reference No. I of 2007 and 
confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial court resultantly 
Criminal Appeal No. I 05-DB/2007 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the 
judgment of the High court dated 30.05.2008 Criminal Appeal Nos.1396-
D 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 
(Cr!.) N os.192-193 of 2011 which review petitions were dismissed by 
E circulation vi de 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 of2016 were filed by the applicants for reopening 
F the Review Petition (Crl.) Nos.192-193 of201 l. 
3. Learned counsel for the parties were permitted to advance 
their oral submissions on 24.l 0.2016 in support of Review Petition (Crl.) 
Nos.192-193 of2011. 
4. We have heard Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel 
G 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 
H the judgment of this Court dated 25.01.2010 by which judgment criminal
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
183 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.) 
appeals filed by the applicants were dismissed and death sentence A 
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. 
B 
7. Article 137 of the Constitution oflndia 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 C 
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: 
"J, The Court may review its judgment or order. but no 
D 
application for review will be entertained in a civil 
proceeding except on the ground 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. " 
9. This Court has constitutional power to review its judgment as 
granted by Article 137 of the Constitution which is subject to provisions 
E 
of any law made by Parliament or any Rules made under Article 145. 
Under Article 145 the Supreme Court has framed Rules, 1966 as noted 
above. As per Rule 1 of Order 40 an application for review in
a criminal 
proceeding can be entertained on the ground of an error apparent on the 
face of the record. 
F 
10. Granting power of review to this Court by the Constitution is 
in recognition of the universal principle that the power ofreview is part 
of all judicial system. Rule 1 of Order 40 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 
provides for the procedure and manner in which the power of review 
can be exercised by this Court. The ambit and scope of power ofreview G 
of this Court has come up for consideration time and again before this 
Court. Justice Krishna Iyer in Sow Chandra Kante and another vs. 
Sheikh Hai, (1975) 1SCC674, held that to review of a judgment of 
this Court are subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly 
entertained. Explaining the scope and ambit of the review jurisdiction of 
this Court following was stated: 
H
184 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
"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. " 
11. As noticed above although Rule l of Order 40 prohibits filing 
of review application in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of 
error apparent on the face of the record. The Constitution Bench of this 
Court has occasion again to consider the ambit and scope of review 
C jurisdiction in P.N. Eswara Iyer and others vs. Registrar, Supreme 
Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680. In the above case Order 40 Rule 
3 as amended in 1978 was under challenge. In the above context this 
Court had occasion to consider contour of the review jurisdiction and 
the Constitution Bench speaking through Justice Krishna Iyer 
D categorically held that although Order 40 Rule l limits the ground viz-a-
viz criminal proceedings to errors apparent on the face of the record but 
the power to review in Article 137 is wide and framers of the rules 
never intended a restrictive review over criminal orders or judgments. 
In paragraphs 34 and 35 following was laid down: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"34. The rule, on its face, affords a wider set of grounds for 
review for
orders in civil proceedings, but limits the ground 
vis-a-vis criminal proceedings to "errors apparent on the 
face of the record". If at all, the concern of the law to avoid 
judicial error should be heightened when life or liberty is in 
peril since civil penalties are often less traumatic. So, it is 
reasonable to assume that the framers of the rules could not 
have intend.ed a restrictive review over criminal orders or 
judgments. It is likely to be the other way about. Supposing 
an accused is sentenced to death by the Supreme Court and 
the "deceased" shows up in court and the court discovers 
the tragic treachery of the recorded testimony. Is the court 
helpless to review and set aside the sentence of hanging? 
We think not. The power to review is in Article 13 7 and it is 
equally wide in all proceedings. The rule merely canalises 
the flow from the reservoir of power. The stream cannot stifle 
the source. Moreover, the dynamics of interpretation depend
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
185 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
on the demand of the context and the lexical limits of the 
A 
test. Here "record" means any materiql which is already on 
record or may, with the permission of the court, be brought 
on record. If justice summons the Judges to allow a vital 
material in, it becomes part of the record; and if apparent 
error is there, correCtion becomes necessitous. 
35. The purpose is plain, the language is elastic and 
interpretation of a necessary power must naturally be 
expansive. The substantive power is derived from Article 137 
and is as wide for criminal as for civil proceedings. Even 
B 
the difference in phraseology in the rule (Order 40 Rule 2) 
C 
must, therefore, be read to encompass the same area and not 
to engraft an artificial divergence productive of anomaly .. If 
the expression "record" is read to mean, in its semantic sweep, 
any material even later brought on record, with the leave of 
the court, it will embrace subsequent events, new light and 
other grounds which we find in Order 47 Rule J, CPC. We 
D 
see no insuperable difficulty in equating the area in Civil 
and criminal proceedings when review power is invoked from 
the same source. " 
12. This Court in subsequent judgments has also noticed that scope 
of review in criminal proceedings has been considerably widened by the 
E 
Constitution Bench of.this Court in P.N. Eswara (supra). Jn 
Suthendraraja alias Suthenthira Raja alias Santhan and
others vs. 
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI, (1999) 9 SCC 323, 
Justice D.P Wadhwa made the following observation: 
"5. It would be seen that the scope of review in criminal F 
proceedings has been. considerably widened by the 
pronouncement in the aforesaid judgment. In any case review 
is not rehearing of the appeal all over again and to maintain 
a review petition it has to be shown that there has been a 
miscarriage of justice. Of course, the expression 
"miscarriage of justice" is all-embrqcing ... " 
13. Again a two-Judge Bench in Lily Thomas and others vs. 
Union of India and others, (2000) 6 SCC 224, had the occasion to 
consider the scope ofreview jurisdiction of this Court. In paragraph 52 
following was laid down: 
G 
H
186 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
"52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the act of 
looking, offer something again with a view to correction or 
improvement". It cannot be denied that the review is the creation 
of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. 
PradyumansinghjiArjunsinghji,-(1971) 3 SCC 844, held that the 
power ofreview is not an inherent power. It must be conferred 
by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review 
is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice 
is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or 
procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of 
administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the 
Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was 
under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been 
passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist 
and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing 
would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. This Court in 
S. Nagaraj v. State ofKamataka 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, held: 
(SCC pp. 619-20, para 19) 
"19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination 
or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal 
acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm oflaw the courts 
and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision 
legally and properly made.
Exceptions both statutorily and 
judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or 
miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision 
and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the 
circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled 
out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. 
In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai AIR 1941 
FC 1, the Court observed that even though no rules had been 
framed permitting the highest court to review its order yet it was 
available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the 
Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the 
principle laid down by the Privy Council in Raj under Narain Rae 
v. Bijai Govind Singh, (1836) 1 Moo PC 117: 2 MIA181, that an 
order made by the Court was final and could not be altered: 
' ... nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, 
errors have been introduced, these courts possess, by common
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
187 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
law, the same power which the courts of record and statute A 
have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in .... The 
House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying mistakes 
made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must 
possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a 
step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through 
B 
inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied 
manifest defects in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, 
or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled 
inconsistencies.' 
Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same C 
decision as under: 
'It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in 
such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing 
to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a court of 
last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, 
the party has not been heard and an order has been D 
inadvertently made as if the party had been heard. ' 
Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental 
principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the 
error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was 
framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order E 
passed by this Court was specifically provided by Article 137 
of the Constitution. Our Constitution-makers who had the 
practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such
provision 
expressly conferred the substantive power to review any 
judgment or order by Article 13 7 of the Constitution. And clause 
F 
(c) of Article 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the 
conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be 
reviewed. In exercise of this power Order XL had been framed 
empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings 
on grounds analogous to Order 4 7 Rule I of the Civil Procedure 
Code. The expression, 'for any other sufficient reason' in the 
G 
clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or 
order passed under misapprehension of true state of 
circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise 
the power. Apart from Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court 
Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such orders H
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the 
abuse of process of court. The Court is thus not precluded 
from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it 
is necessary to do so for sake of justice." 
The mere fact that two views on the same subject are possible 
B 
is no ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a 
Bench of the same strength. " 
c 
D 
14. It was further held that mere possibility of two views on the 
same subject is not a ground for review. In paragraph 56 following was 
stated: 
"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be 
exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a 
view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the 
statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot 
be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of 
two views on the subject is not a ground for review ... " 
15. Further in Devender Pal Singh vs. State, NCT of Delhi and 
another, (2003) 2 SCC 501, Arijit Pasayat,J., elaborately examined 
the scope and ambit of review jurisdiction of this Court after referring to 
all earlier relevant judgments of this Court. In paragraph 11 following 
E was stated: 
F 
"11. Though the scope of review in criminal proceedings 
has been widened to a considerable extent, in view of the 
aforesaid exposition of law by the Constitutional Bench, in 
any case review is not rehearing of the appeal all over
again, 
and as was observed in Suthendraraja in order to maintain 
the review petition, it has to be shown that there is a 
miscarriage of justice. Though the expression "miscarriage 
ofjustice" is of a wider amplitude, it has to be kept in mind 
that the scope of interference is very limited ...... " 
G 
16. It was further held that resort to review is proper only where 
a omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier 
judgment by judicial fallibility. In paragraph 16 following has been stated: 
H 
"16. As was observed by this Court in Col. Avtar Singh 
Sekhon v. Union of India. 1980 Supp SCC 562, review is 
not a routine procedure. A review of an earlier order is not
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB. 
189 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
permissible unless the Court is satisfied that material error, 
A 
manifest on the face of the order undermines its soundness 
or results in miscarriage of justice. A review of judgment in 
a case 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 .... The stage B 
of review is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier 
order which has the normal feature of finality." 
17. As noted above under Order 40 Rule 1 no application for 
review can be entertained except on the ground of an error apparent on 
the face of the record. Although, the power of review given to this Court 
is wider as has been held by the Constitut~on Bench in P. N. Eshwara 
C 
(supra), Justice Krishna Iyer has given an illustration where the Court 
will not hesitate in exercising its power to review in a case where 
deceased himself walks in the Court. on whose murder accused were 
convicted. Justice Krishna Iyer rightly observed that Court is not 
powerless to do justice in such case. Thus, although the power of review 
D 
granted to this Court is wider but normally and ordinarily the review in a 
criminal case has to be on the grounds as enumerated in Rule 1 of 
· Order40. 
18. What is "an error apparent on the face of the record" has 
also been a subject matter of consideration by this Court in a large number 
E
of cases. What are the grounds on which this Court shall exercise its 
jurisdiction and what is the error apparent on the face of the record 
came to be considered by this Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati 
and others, (1013) 8 SCC 320 (in which case one of us Dipak Misra, 
J. was also a party). This Court held that an error which is not self-
evident and has to be detected by a process ofreasoning is not an error 
F 
apparent on the face of the record. In paragraphs 15 and 16 following 
was laid down: 
"15. An error which iS not self-evident and has to be detected 
by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error 
apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to 
G 
exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an 
. appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard 
and corrected, but lies only for patent error. This Court in 
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi· 1997 (8) SCC 715, held as 
under: (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 7-9) 
H
190 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly 
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In 
Thungabhadra industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.• AIR 1964 SC 
1372, this Court opined: (AIR p. 1377, para 11) 
'11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether 
the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case 
did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error 
apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the 
earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of 
facts that a substantial question of law arose would not 
per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be 
erroneous. Similqrly, even if the statement was wrong, it 
would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the 
face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, 
though it might not always be capable of exposition, 
between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which 
could be characterised as vitiated by ''error apparent". A 
review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an 
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only 
for patent error. ' 
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury 
1995 (I) SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage 
from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma 
1979 (4) SCC 389, this Court once again held that review 
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be 
strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 
CPC. 
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to 
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent 
on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident 
and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly 
be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record 
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under 
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under 
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous 
decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it 
must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be 
allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. " 
(emphasis in original)
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
191 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
16. Error contemplated under the Rule must be such which A 
is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which 
has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of 
inadvertence. The power of review can be exercised for 
correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The mere 
possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for 
B 
review." 
19. Further elaborating on the parameters ofreview jurisdiction 
following was laid down in paragraphs 17 and 18: 
"17. In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to 
reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, c 
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 
theface of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This 
Court in Kera/a SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower 
Ltd. 2005 (6) SCC 651 held as under: (SCC p. 656, para D 
JO) 
"JO . ... 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 E 
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. lfon appreciation 
F 
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. 
G 
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. " 
18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The 
power of review cannot be confused with appellate power H
192 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 
which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed 
by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled 
argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. 
This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. 
Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under: (SCC pp. 504-505, 
paras 11-12) 
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits 
is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right 
in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same 
relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the 
main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer 
had been refused, no review petition would lie which would 
convert rehearing of the original matter. it is settled law 
that the power of review cannot be ~33'!>confused with 
appellate power which enables a superior court to correct 
all errors committed by a subordinate court. it is not 
rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and 
overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded 
adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with 
extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in 
exceptional cases. 
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the 
applicant herein had been made at the time when the 
arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same 
relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a 
review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature
of 'second innings' which is impermissible and 
unwarranted and cannot be granted. "" 
20. Summarising the principles when review will be maintainable 
and review will not be maintainable following was held in paragraphs 
20.l and20.2: 
"20.1. When the review will be maintainable: 
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence 
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within 
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by 
him:
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
193 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; 
A 
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. 
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been 
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neid AIR 1922 PC 112 and 
approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos 
v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 to 
B 
mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to 
those specified in the rule". The same principles have been 
reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron 
Ores Ltd.(2013) 8 SCC 337. 
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: 
. (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not 
enough to reopen concluded adjudications. 
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. 
c 
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the D 
original hearing of the case. 
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, 
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness 
or results in miscarriage of justice. 
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby 
E 
an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only 
for patent error. 
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot 
be a ground for review. 
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should 
not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. 
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within 
the domain of the appellate court, it
cannot be permitted to 
F 
be advanced in the review petition. 
G 
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought 
at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. " 
21. In view of 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 H
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A 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 re-argue the appeal on the grounds which 
were urged at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal. Even ifthe 
B 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 earlier decision 
due to judicial fallibility. There has to be error apparent on the face of 
the record leading miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction 
C 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 the justice. 
22. In view of parameters of the review jurisdiction as noticed 
above, we now proceed to examine the review petition to find out as to 
D whether there are sufficient grounds as enumerated above for reviewing 
the judgment of the criminal appeal affirming the death sentence awarded 
to the applicants. 
E 
F 
23. Learned counsel contended that the tape-recorded conversation 
has been relied on without there being any certificate under Section 658 
of the Evidence Act,
1872. It was contended that audio tapes are recorded 
on magnetic media, the same could be established through a certificate 
under Section 658 and in the absence of the certificate, the document 
which constitutes electronic record, cannot be deemed to be a valid 
evidence and has to be ignored from consideration. Reliance has been 
placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of this Court in Anvar 
P. V. vs. P.K. Basheerand others, (2014) JOSCC 473. The conversation 
on the landline phone of the complainant situate in a shop was recorded 
by the complainant. The same cassette containing conversation by which 
ransom call was made on the landline phone was handed over by the 
complainant in original to the Police. This Court in its judgment dated 
G 25.01.2010 has referred to the aforesaid fact and has noted the said fact 
to the following effect: 
"The cassette on which the conversations had been recorded 
on the landline was handed over by Ravi Verma to S.J. Jiwan 
Kumar and on a replay of the tape, the conversation was 
H 
clearly audible and was heard by the Police. "
VIKRAM SINGH@ VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
195 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.) 
24. The tape recorded conversation was not secondary evidence A 
which required certificate under Section 65B, since it was the original 
cassette by which ransom call was tape-recorded, there cannot be any 
dispute that for admission of secondary evidence of electronic record a 
certificate as contemplated by Section 65B is a mandatory condition. In 
Anvar P. V. (supra) this Court had laid down the above proposition in 
B 
paragraph 22. However, in the same judgment this Court has observed 
that the situation would have been different, had the primary evidence 
was produced. The conversation recorded by the complainant contains 
ransom calls was' relevant under Section 7 and was primary evidence 
which was relied on by the complainant. In paragraph 24 of the judgment 
· of this Court in Anvar P. V. it is categorically held that if an electronic 
C 
record is used as primary evidence the same is admissible in evidence, 
without compliance with the conditions in Section 65B. Paragraph 24 is 
as extracted below: 
"24. The situation would have been different had the 
appellant adduced primary evidence, by making available D 
in evidence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had 
those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcements 
been duly got seized through the police or Election 
Commission and had the same been used as primary 
evidence, the High Court could have played the same in court 
E 
to
see whether the allegations were true. That is not the 
situation in this case. The speeches, songs and 
announcements were recorded using other instruments and 
by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom 
which were produced in court, without due certification. 
Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence since the 
mandatory requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act 
F 
are not satisfied. It is clarified that notwithstanding what we 
have stated herein in the preceding paragraphs on the 
secondary evidence of electronic record with reference to 
Sections 59, 65-A and 65-B of the Evidence Act, if an 
electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under . G 
Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible _in 
evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 
65-B of the Evidence Act. " 
25. He has further contended that on the plain reading of the 
Chemical Examiner's report, it is clear that the death was caused due to 
H
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 
A overdose of chloroform and pentazocine poisoning. Hence, the conviction 
ought to have been under Section 304A !PC and not under Section 302 
lPC. The conviction against the applicants under Section 302 and 364A 
was recorded after considering entire evidence on record. This Court 
while dismissing the criminal appeals and affirming the death Reference 
B No.I has appreciated the entire evidence and approved the decision of 
the trial court and the High Court. The conviction of the applicant was 
based on cogent, ocular and medical evidence and in the review application 
applicants have again asked this Court to re-appraise the evidence and 
come to a different conclusion. There is no apparent error on the face of 
the record in recording conviction of the applicants under Section 302 
C and364A. 
26. It is further contended that this Court had relied on the 
disclosure statement of Jasvir Singh, which led to the recovery of the 
dead body which disclosure statement does not connect Vikram Singh 
with the crime. The trial court as well as the High Court marshaled the 
D ocular evidence by which evidence role ofVikram Si.ngh was duly proved 
in commission of crime. Hence, this submission deserves to be rejected. 
E 
F 
27. Lastly, Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel submits that 
this Court in paragraph 18 has recorded its conclusion that the finger 
prints of Vikram Singh were found on the Alto and Chevrolet cars,
therefore, connection of Vikram Singh is established in the crime. It is 
submitted that since this Court recorded at para 18 that the said cars 
belong to Vikram Singh, the existence of finger prints cannot by itself be 
of any significance with regard to his culpability in the crime. It is 
submitted that by relying on finger prints, this Court had committed an 
apparent erroron the face of the record. The above submission ofleamed 
counsel is misconceived and incorrect. In para 18 of the judgment this 
Court never observed that Alto and Chevrolet cars belonged to Vikram 
Singh. The statement of facts made in para 18 was to the effect that the 
finger prints from the Alto and Chevrolet cars belong to Vikram Singh 
and Jasvir Singh respectively. It is useful to extract below para 18 of the 
G judgment: 
"18. We also find that the prosecution has been able to show 
that the finger prints lifted by the Police Officers from the 
Alto and Chevrolet cars belonged to Vikram Singh and jasvir 
Singh respectively. It is significant that the Chloroform bottle 
H 
recovered from Darshan Kaur s residence was also examined
VIKRAM SINGH @VICKY WALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
197 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
and the thumb impression of Jasvir Singh was detected A 
thereon." 
28. There is evidence of the owner of Alto car, PW.3, Naresh 
Kumar Sharma who had stated in his statement that the car was lent by 
him to Vikram Singh in the morning of 141h February, 2005 at about 7 
a.m. to 7.30 a.m. Thus, it was no one's case that Alto car belonged to 
B 
Vikram Singh. The argument raised by Shri K.T.S. Tutsi is misconceived 
and we unhesitatingly repel the same. 
29. Learned counsel has further contended that present was not 
a case where death penalty could have been awarded to the applicants. 
In the review petition reliance has been placed by the applicants on c 
Constitution Bench judgment in Bachan Si11gh vs. State of Pu11jab, 
(1980) 2 SCC 684, and judgment in Machhi Singh a11d others vs. 
State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. This Court in its judgment dismissing 
the appeals referred to Bacha11 Singh and Machhi Si11gh and has 
categorically applied its mind to various parameters laid down in the 
aforesaid judgments and on the broad principle which emerged from the 
D 
judgments for evaluating the category of the rarest of the rare case. 
Various mitigating and aggravated factors which have been noted in the 
judgment of the High Court were referred to by this Court, and this 
Court recorded its conclusion that balance-sheet has been drawn by the 
High Court of aggravating and mitigating circumstances which
was duly 
E 
adopted by this Court. We do not find any error apparent on the record 
in the above consideration by this Court in affirming the judgment of the 
High Court. 
30. Learned counsel appearing for Jasvir Singh adopted the 
submissions of Shri K.T.S. Tulsi on legal issues and on the question of F 
sentence. Certain other submissions have been raised on behalf of the 
second applicant which also do not disclose any ground which can be 
said to be a valid ground for exercising review jurisdiction. 
31. We, after carefully considering the submissions of the 
applicants, are of the considered opinion that submissions raised in the 
G 
review petitions do not raise any ground for review of judgment of this 
Court dated25.0l.2010. 
32. In the result, the review applications are rejected. 
Nidhi Jain 
Review applications rejected.