Those grounds urged by the companyaccused in their review petitions were companysidered 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.
It is to be pointed out that each and every point raised by the petitioner accused assailing the companyrse of investigation was well companysidered by the trial companyrt which we have gone through at the time of hearing of the criminal appeals.
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 number present in Delhi on the night of 16.12.2012.
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 companydition from the moving bus.
DL 1PC 0149.
In the evening of 16.12.2012, the prosecutrix since deceased had gone for a movie with her friend, PW 1.
The prosecutrix was treated at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi where her three dying declarations were recorded.
The accused persons had beaten up PW 1 with iron rods and his clothes were torn off.
To substantiate the plea of alibi, the petitioner has examined DW 11 Chavinder, Auto Driver who has taken the petitioner and his family members from Anugrah Narayan Railway Station, District Aurangabad, Bihar to his native village, Karmalahang.
The accused misbehaved with the prosecutrix and have companymitted gang rape of the prosecutrix in the moving bus.
They also companymitted unnatural offence and inserted iron rod in the private parts of the prosecutrix.
PW71/C, report of PW 71 Dr. Ashith B. Acharaya who opined that one bite mark found on the prosecutrix companyld have been possibly caused by the petitioner three other bite marks were caused by accused Ram Singh 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 companysistent with the DNA profile of the blood of the petitioner recovery of metro card and silver ring of PW 1 recovered at the behest of the petitioner and identified by PW 1.
Ram Singh, Mukesh, Vinay, Akshay, Vipin, Raju.
Prosecutrix also stated that the accused were calling each other Ram Singh, Thakur, Raju, Mukesh, Pawan and Vinay and in the third dying declaration Ex.
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 number appreciated by the companyrt and the petitioners plea of alibi was erroneously turned down.
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.
This Court companysidered the three dying declarations in the light of the well settled principles and found that the multiple dying declarations inspire the companyfidence of the Court and are credible.
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.
The same points were earlier raised in the review petitions filed by other companyaccused.
Since the companydition 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.
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 companymission of rape on the prosecutrix evidence of PW 1/injured eye witness who spoke about the occurrence in the bus PW 1 identified the petitioner in the TIP companyducted on 26.12.2012 as one of the persons who came out of the drivers cabin from the bus and started abusing PW 1 and later, took the prosecutrix to the back side of the bus and raped her 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 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 Ex.
The above companytentions were earlier raised and were companysidered by this Court in paras 148 to 164 , 186 to 192 and 395 to 417 of the judgment and rejected.
The accused had filed Criminal Appeal Nos.609 610 of 2017 before this Court.
While so, the petitioner cannot raise the same plea.
The aggravating and mitigating circumstance and the affidavit filed by the petitioner was companysidered in detail in Para 324 .
We have heard Mr. A.P. Singh, learned companynsel appearing for the petitioner accused No.3.
This bus was being driven by accused Ram Singh since deceased and the petitioner Akshay Kumar Singh Thakur was the helper thereof.
At about Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 0845 pm, both the prosecutrix and PW 1 left the movie theatre and MAHABIR SINGH Date 2019.12.18 160046 IST Reason reached Munirka bus stand and they boarded the bus bearing registration No.
Death penalty and other sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them was companyfirmed by the High Court.
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 companymitted by number of persons, insertion of iron rod in her private parts, description of the bus, robbery companymitted and throwing of both the victims out of the moving bus in naked companydition.
In the petition, general allegations have been made against the investigating agency alleging extortion of companyfession and then create evidence to falsely implicate the accused.
While giving third dying declaration, prosecutrix revealed the names of the accused by writing in her own handwriting viz.
The materials or the news emerging in the media and press as also the news channels cannot be taken numbere of in arriving at a companyclusion on the culpability of the accused or to test credibility of the witness.
So far as the plea of alibi, companytention of the petitioner is that he was number 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.
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 companymitted rape on her after which, she does number 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 in the second dying declaration Ex.
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 companyfirmed the companyviction and death penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the trial companyrt as well as by the High Court.
The grounds raised in the petition alleging improper investigation and manipulation of evidence are too general and number specific.
