Date of the Judgment: April 23, 2025
Citation: [Citation not found in source]
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Augustine George Masih, J.
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Allahabad High Court erred in modifying its initial judgment regarding a criminal case involving offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The core issue revolved around the High Court’s alteration of a conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) based on a “clerical error.” The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the limits of judicial review under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, delivered the judgment, emphasizing the impermissibility of altering a signed judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint lodged on May 13, 2012, by Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur at P.S. Sikrara, District Jaunpur, alleging assault by the accused, Bhupendra Singh, Moti Lal, and Prahlad, due to a pre-existing family enmity. The First Information Report (FIR) No. 290 of 2012 was registered under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
The prosecution’s case was that a land dispute between the families led to the accused attacking Ramyash and his family members with weapons. During the altercation, Ramyash’s father, Jeet Lal, sustained severe injuries and died en route to the hospital. The post-mortem report indicated that the cause of death was haemorrhage, shock, and coma resulting from ante-mortem injuries.
Following Jeet Lal’s death, Section 304 IPC was added to the FIR. The chargesheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jaunpur, as Sessions Trial No. 277 of 2012.
The trial court framed charges against the accused under Sections 302, 323, and 324 read with Section 34, and Sections 452, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The accused denied the charges, claiming false implication due to the ongoing land dispute.
The trial court convicted the accused on March 10, 2015, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 13, 2012 | Complaint lodged by Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur at P.S. Sikrara, District Jaunpur. FIR No. 290 of 2012 registered. |
| Morning of May 13, 2012 | Accused persons allegedly assaulted the appellant and his family members. |
| May 13, 2012 | Jeet Lal (appellant’s father) died on the way to the hospital. |
| N/A | Section 304 IPC added to the FIR. |
| N/A | Chargesheet filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. |
| N/A | Case committed to the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, as Sessions Trial No. 277 of 2012. |
| March 10, 2015 | Trial court convicted the accused persons. |
| N/A | Accused persons preferred three criminal appeals before the High Court (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1078 and 1691 of 2015 and 1094 of 2016). |
| May 21, 2018 | A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals and upheld the judgment of the trial court dated March 10, 2015 (“First Judgment”). |
| N/A | Accused persons preferred an application under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. (Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2019). |
| February 8, 2019 | High Court allowed the Correction Application and modified its First Judgment. |
| April 23, 2025 | Supreme Court delivered judgment, allowing the appeals filed by the complainant and dismissing the appeal filed by accused Bhupendra Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
The accused, aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court initially dismissed these appeals on May 21, 2018, upholding the trial court’s conviction. Subsequently, the accused filed a correction application under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., claiming that the High Court had orally modified the sentence during the judgment pronouncement, converting the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC.
The High Court, through the impugned judgment and order, allowed the correction application, modifying its first judgment. This modification converted the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing the sentences for the accused.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision at the center of this case is Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:
“362. Court not to alter judgment. – Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.”
This section restricts courts from altering or reviewing their judgments once they have been signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on interpreting whether the High Court’s modification fell within this exception.
Other relevant legal provisions include:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Pertains to the punishment for murder.
- Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Relate to various offenses including voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, house-trespass, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur):
- The procedure adopted by the High Court was contrary to Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
- The High Court’s modification completely changed its earlier judgment.
- Under Section 362 Cr.P.C., a court cannot alter or review its judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
Respondents’ Arguments (Accused Persons):
- The respondents supported the High Court’s impugned judgment, arguing that the High Court was merely correcting a clerical error.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondents’ Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of High Court’s Modification |
✓ The High Court’s procedure violated Section 362 of Cr.P.C. ✓ The modification fundamentally altered the original judgment. ✓ Section 362 Cr.P.C. only allows corrections for clerical or arithmetical errors. |
✓ The High Court was simply rectifying a clerical error. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court was justified in modifying its first judgment.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in modifying its first judgment. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s modification was not justified. | The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C., as the modification involved a substantive change in the judgment rather than correcting a mere clerical or arithmetical error. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Another (1981) 1 SCC 500 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to define the scope of “clerical or arithmetical error” under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that a clerical or arithmetical error is an accidental slip or omission, representing what the court never intended to say, and is apparent on the face of the record. |
| Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1966 SC 1047 : (1966) 3 SCR 99 : (1966) 17 STC 360] | Supreme Court of India | Cited within the context of Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Another to further elaborate on the definition of clerical and arithmetical errors. |
| Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1208 : 1962 Supp 2 SCR 817 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 288] | Supreme Court of India | Cited within the context of Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Another to emphasize that the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised to do what is specifically prohibited by the Code. |
| Naresh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 3 SCCC 74 | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case where a similar exercise of altering a judgment was undertaken by the High Court. The Supreme Court in Naresh had held that the High Court was wrong in altering the judgment and that it was in contravention of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court’s modification was contrary to Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court’s modification was not a mere correction of a clerical error but a substantive change in the judgment, thus violating Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. |
| Respondents’ submission that the High Court was merely correcting a clerical error. | Rejected. The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s alteration involved a change in reasoning and conclusion, which went beyond the scope of correcting a clerical error. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Another (1981) 1 SCC 500: The Supreme Court used this case to reinforce the definition and limitations of “clerical or arithmetical error,” emphasizing that the High Court’s modification did not fall within this definition.
✓ Naresh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 3 SCCC 74: The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight a similar instance where a High Court had wrongly altered a judgment, in contravention of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. This precedent supported the Supreme Court’s decision to quash the High Court’s modification.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation and application of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making a substantive change to the judgment under the guise of correcting a clerical error. The Court’s reasoning focused on maintaining the integrity of judicial pronouncements and adhering to statutory limitations on the power of review.
| Factor | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Statutory Interpretation (Section 362 Cr.P.C.) | 60% |
| Precedential Authority (Smt. Sooraj Devi, Naresh and Others) | 25% |
| Maintaining Judicial Integrity | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio
The Supreme Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations than factual aspects. The emphasis on the interpretation and application of Section 362 Cr.P.C., along with reliance on precedents, indicates a greater focus on legal principles.
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Law | 70% |
| Fact | 30% |
The “Law” category includes the interpretation and application of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and the consideration of precedential authority. The “Fact” category includes the factual background of the case and the specific actions of the High Court.
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- Judgments cannot be altered or reviewed once they are signed, except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.
- High Courts must adhere strictly to the provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
- Substantive changes to a judgment are not permissible under the guise of correcting clerical errors.
- The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to statutory provisions.
Directions
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- The accused, if they have not undergone their sentence as recorded by the High Court in its first judgment dated May 21, 2018, are directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this judgment, after which they shall undergo the remaining period of sentence.
- The Court reserved the right of the accused persons to challenge the judgment and order dated May 21, 2018. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. strictly prohibits courts from altering or reviewing their judgments once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The judgment reinforces the principle that substantive modifications to a judgment, which involve changes in reasoning or conclusions, are beyond the scope of permissible corrections under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
There is no change in the previous position of law. The Supreme Court reiterated and applied the existing legal principles regarding the interpretation and application of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the original complainant, Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur, and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused, Bhupendra Singh. The Court quashed the Allahabad High Court’s judgment and order dated February 8, 2019, reinstating the original conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court and initially affirmed by the High Court on May 21, 2018. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. by making a substantive change to the judgment under the guise of correcting a clerical error.