LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi

Review Petition (Criminal) · 2018 INSC 590Decided 9 Jul 2018
Review Petition (Criminal) No. 570 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2017
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice R. Banumathi · Justice Ashok Bhushan

Background

Mukesh, one of the convicts in the December 2012 Delhi gang-rape and murder case, was sentenced to death by the trial court, with the conviction and sentence upheld by the Delhi High Court and then by the Supreme Court in its final judgment of 05.05.2017. He filed this review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution, raising a series of grounds: alleged illegal detention and delayed production before a magistrate, alleged coercion into accepting a police-appointed advocate, alleged torture to extract his Section 313 statement, a claim he lacked a bus driving licence and could not have driven the bus, call-record evidence allegedly placing him elsewhere, and challenges to the dying declarations and recovery evidence.

Decision Breakdown

The Court reiterated the narrow scope of review jurisdiction in criminal matters: permissible only for an error apparent on the face of the record, not as a rehearing of the appeal or a chance to reargue points already considered. Going through each ground raised, the Court found that all of them (the arrest circumstances, choice of counsel, torture allegations, driving-licence point, call records, and the three dying declarations) had already been examined and rejected in the original 05.05.2017 judgment, and that the petitioner was merely repeating arguments rather than pointing to any new or overlooked material. Finding no glaring omission or patent error warranting review, the Court held the review petition did not disclose any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and dismissed it, leaving the conviction and death sentence undisturbed.

Lesson Learnt

A review petition before the Supreme Court is not a second appeal: it succeeds only on a narrow showing of a patent error apparent on the record or genuinely new evidence, and simply re-presenting arguments that were already considered and rejected at the appeal stage will not reopen a final judgment, even in a capital case.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case