New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a review petition filed by death row convicts Vikram Singh, alias Vicky, and Jasbir Singh for kidnap and murder of 16-year-old Abhi Verma, aka Harry, a student of Hoshiarpur’s DAV School, in 2005.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a review petition filed by death row convicts Vikram Singh, alias Vicky, and Jasbir Singh for kidnap and murder of 16-year-old Abhi Verma, aka Harry, a student of Hoshiarpur’s DAV School, in 2005.

A three-judge bench headed by justice Dipak Misra held that it has not found any “error apparent on the record” in the apex court’s January 25, 2010, verdict by which the death sentence awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana high court was maintained.

The bench, also comprising justices R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, observed that scope, ambit and parameters of review jurisdiction were well defined, and 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 reargue the appeal on the grounds which were urged at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal,” the bench said.

The convicts had kidnapped the victim, son of goldsmith Ravi Verma, on February 14, 2005, and murdered him. The apex court’s order came on the review petitions filed by the convicts, whose death penalty was upheld by the top court.

Discussing the scope of review, the apex court said: “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”.

“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 .... ,” it said.

The convicts had filed pleas for re-opening the review petition on the basis of a judgment passed by a bench of the SC that had granted liberty to those whose pleas seeking review of verdict confirming death sentence were rejected by circulation but sentences were not executed.