Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna

JUDGMENT

L. Nageswara Rao, J.

1. This Petition has been filed Under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, seeking review of the judgment dated 09.10.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1795 of 2009. The Petitioners were convicted for offences Under Sections 302 and 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and sentenced to death for offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for offence Under Section 449 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The conviction and death sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand by an order dated 02.07.2009 and the Criminal Appeal filed by the Petitioners against the said order was dismissed by this Court by its judgment dated 09.10.2014. In Mohd. Arif v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India   MANU/SC/0754/2014 : (2014) 9 SCC 737, this Court held that review petitions arising out of appeals affirming the death sentence are required to be heard orally by a three-Judge bench. Pursuant to the said judgment, this Review Petition is listed for open court hearing.

2. At the outset, it is necessary to set out the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court in hearing review petitions. Article 137 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced by it, subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any Rules made Under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides that the Court may review its own judgment or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. Needless to mention that the Supreme Court Rules, ........