ORDER Review Petition (Criminal) No. 56-60/2023 1. The Review petitions have been filed by the State of Delhi seeking review of the common judgment and order dated 7 November 2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 611/2022-615/2022. The State has also filed the application seeking permission to bring on record some events which have allegedly taken place qua one of the accused Vinod after pronouncement of the judgment. 2. After having considered the judgment and other documents on record, we do not find any error either factual or legal, apparent on the face of record requiring review of the aforestated judgment passed by this Court. 3. Even if an event, which has no nexus to the instant case had taken place subsequent to the pronouncement of the judgment that would not be a ground to entertain the review petitions. 4. In that view of the matter, the review petitions are dismissed. The IAs also stand rejected. Review Petition (Criminal) No. 61/2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 611/2022 5. The review petition has been filed by the petitioner-Kunwar Singh Negi, the father of the victim seeking review of the common judgment and order dated 7 November 2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 611/2022 - 615/2022. 6. After having carefully gone through the judgment and the documents on record, we do not find any error either factual or legal, apparent on the face of record requiring review of the aforestated judgment passed by this Court. 7. In that view of the matter, the review petition is dismissed. The IAs also stand rejected. Diary No. 40179/2022 8. The applicant Yogita Bhayana, claiming to be an anti-rape activist and social worker based at New Delhi, has filed the application seeking permission to file review petition for seeking review of the common judgment and order dated 7 November 2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 611/2022-615/2022. 9. Such an application at the instance of a person who was not a party to the criminal proceedings is not maintainable in a criminal appeal. Moreover, the Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the State of Delhi by recording that there was no error apparent on the face of record requiring the review of the judgment in the appeals. The application seeking permission to file review petition is rejected. The connected IAs also stand rejected. Diary No. 39804/2022 10. Moreover, the Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the State of Delhi by recording that there was no error apparent on the face of record requiring the review of the judgment in the appeals. The application seeking permission to file review petition is rejected. The connected IAs also stand rejected. Diary No. 39804/2022 10. The review petition has been filed by Uttarakhand Bachao Movement, an unregistered organization seeking permission to file a review petition for seeking review of the common judgment and order dated 7 November 2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 611/2022-615/2022. 11. Such an application at the instance of a person who was not a party to the criminal proceedings is not maintainable in a criminal appeal. Moreover, the Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the State of Delhi by recording that there was no error apparent on the face of record requiring the review of the judgment in the appeals. The application seeking permission to file review petition is rejected. The connected IAs also stand rejected. 12. The application seeking permission to file review petition is rejected. The connected IAs also stand rejected. Diary No. 40293/2022 13. The review petition has been filed by Uttarakhand Lok Manch, an NGO based at New Delhi seeking permission to file review petition for seeking review of the common judgment and order dated 7 November 2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 611/2022 - 615/2022. 14. Such an application at the instance of a person who was not a party to the criminal proceedings is not maintainable in a criminal appeal. Moreover, the Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the State of Delhi by recording that there was no error apparent on the face of record requiring the review of the judgment in the appeals. 15. The application seeking permission to file review petition is rejected. The connected IAs also stand rejected.