Supreme Court of India

MUKESHversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2020 INSC 311
Decided: 19 March 2020
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: R BANUMATHIASHOK BHUSHANA S BOPANNA

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as there is no ground to entertain it; the conviction and all prior orders remain valid.

Summary

Mukesh, a convicted participant in the Nirbhaya case, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the merits of his conviction and a series of subsequent orders, including the High Court's upholding of the conviction, a review petition, a curative petition, a mercy petition rejected by the President, and a criminal revision petition. He alleged improper consideration of evidence, issues concerning a co-accused's disability, and irregularities in his arrest. The Supreme Court observed that Mukesh had been afforded full opportunity to present his case, that the conviction had been thoroughly examined and upheld at each stage, and that the earlier dismissals of his review, curative, and revision petitions left no ground for further judicial interference. Consequently, the Court found no basis to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it. All pending applications were also ordered to stand disposed.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 32 can be entertained to challenge the merits of a conviction and prior orders that have already been considered and upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
Whether the petitioner has any substantive ground to raise merit-based objections in a writ petition after the exhaustion of review, curative, and mercy remedies.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

Nirbhaya caseArticle 32writ petitionconvictioncriminal appealreview petitioncurative petitionmercy petitioncriminal revisionSupreme Court

Judgment

550                      [2020]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 550               [2020] 4 S.C.R.


A                                  MUKESH
                                        v.
                          STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
                    (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 119 of 2020)
B                              MARCH 19, 2020
                  [R. BANUMATHI, ASHOK BHUSHAN
                        AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
             Nirbhaya Case – Writ petition filed u/Art.32 by one of the
      convict raising points on merits of the matter– Held: Petitioner was
C
      given sufficient opportunity and was convicted after consideration
      of the evidence – Conviction was upheld in appeal by High Court –
      Crl. Appeal Nos. 607-608 of 2017 titled Mukesh & Anr. v. State of
      NCT of Delhi &Ors.reported as [2017] 6 SCR 1 were dismissed by
      Supreme Court – Subsequently, Review Petition (Crl.) No.570 of
D     2017 filed by the petitioner reported as [2018] 7 SCR 898 was also
      dismissed – Curative Petition (R) No.6 of 2020 there against was
      also dismissed – Petitioner’s Mercy Petition also rejected by the
      President of India – Writ petition filed u/Art.32 challenging the said
      Order was also dismissed – Petitioner also filed criminal revision
      petition before Patiala House Courts – Dismissed – Criminal Revision
E
      Petition No.237 of 2020 filed by the petitioner challenging the said
      Order was also dismissed by High Court – No ground to entertain
      this writ petition – Constitution of India – Art.32.
            CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
      (Criminal) No. 119 of 2020.
F
                  (Under Article 32 of The Consitution of India)
            Manohar Lal Sharma, Ms. Suman and Deepak Goel, Advs. for
      the Petitioner.
            Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. for the Respondent.
G
            The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                   ORDER
            1. We have heard Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel
      appearing for Mukesh- the convict.
H
                                       550
               MUKESH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                       551


        2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the points on merits     A
of the matter:- (i) That there was no proper consideration of evidence;
(ii) regarding the disability of Ram Singh (accused no.1) who subsequently
allegedly committed suicide in the prison; and (iii) raising doubts about
the arrest of the petitioner at Karoli, Rajasthan and inter alia on other
points.
                                                                                     B
       3. The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and after
consideration of the evidence, the petitioner has been convicted which
was upheld in appeal by the High Court, by the judgment dated 13.03.2014.
The criminal appeal filed before this Court was heard at length and the
points raised by the accused herein were considered in Crl.Appeal Nos.
607-608 of 2017 – Mukesh & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and                  C
were dismissed by the judgment of this Court dated 05.05.2017.
Subsequently, Review Petition (Crl.) No.570 of 2017 filed by the petitioner
herein was dismissed by the judgment of this Court on 09.07.2018.
Curative petition(R) No.6 of 2020 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed
by this Court on 14.01.2020. Mercy Petition of Mukesh was also rejected              D
by His Excellency the President of India on 17.01.2020. The writ petition
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order
of rejection of Mercy Petition was also dismissed by this Court on
29.01.2020.
       4. The petitioner has filed the criminal revision petition before the         E
Patiala House Courts which came to be dismissed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi dated 17.03.2020.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 237 of 2020 filed by the petitioner-Mukesh
challenging the said Order dated 17.03.2020 was also dismissed by the
High Court on 18.03.2020.
                                                                                     F
       5. In view of above and also considering the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any ground to entertain
this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
       6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
       7. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.                G


Divya Pandey                                              Writ Petition dismissed.



                                                                                     H

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Nirbhaya case"Sign in to search