Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. Etc. Etc.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1153-55 OF 2021

RAMYASH @ LAL BAHADUR …APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. …RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1175 OF 2021


J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.


1. These criminal appeals challenge the judgement and
th
final order dated 8 February 2019 passed by the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
Correction Application No. 2 of 2019 which had been
preferred by the accused persons namely, Bhupendra Singh,
Moti Lal and Prahlad.
2. The Correction Application purportedly sought a
clarification of a previous judgment and final order passed by
st 1
the Division Bench of the High Court on 21 May 2018 , by

1
Hereinafter referred to as “First Judgment”.
1

which the High Court had dismissed the criminal appeals
preferred by the accused persons and had affirmed the
judgment passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
2
Court No.4, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 2012
wherein the trial court had convicted the accused persons for
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read
with 34, and Sections 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
3
Code, 1860 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for
life.
3. Subsequently however, the High Court by way of the
impugned judgment and order allowed the Correction
Application preferred by the accused persons and modified
its First Judgment. While so modifying its First Judgment,
the High Court partly allowed the criminal appeals thereby
converting the conviction awarded to the accused persons to
one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and consequently
sentenced accused Bhupendra Singh to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and sentenced accused Moti Lal
and Prahlad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’.
3
‘IPC’ for short.
2

4. We have two sets of criminal appeals before us. The first
set of criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 1153-
1155 of 2021 has been preferred by one Ramyash @ Lal
Bahadur, the original complainant, taking exception to the
modification undertaken by the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order. The second appeal being Criminal
Appeal No. 1175 of 2021 has been filed by accused
Bhupendra Singh with a plea for acquittal. For the sake of
convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties will be
referred to as per their positions in the first set of appeals.

5. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are as
follows:-
th
5.1 On 13 May 2012 at about 7:30 a.m., the appellant
lodged a complaint at P.S. Sikrara, District Jaunpur against
the accused persons, alleging therein that owing to a
previous enmity between the families of the appellant and the
accused persons, on that very morning at around 06:30 a.m.,
the accused persons had verbally and physically assaulted
the appellant and his family members with various weapons
which led to severe injuries being suffered by the appellant
and his family members. On the basis of the complaint, a
3

4
First Information Report being Case Crime No. 290 of 2012
was registered against the accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 of
the IPC.
5.2 According to the prosecution story, the families of the
appellant and the accused persons were related by blood and
there was a long-standing land dispute between the two
families. The dispute had led to a lot of litigation between the
parties, pursuant to which the land belonging to the
appellant’s grandmother was set to be measured and
demarcated on the date of the incident. Owing to the existing
th
animosity, in the early morning of 13 May 2012, the
accused persons arrived at the appellant’s house armed with
various weapons such as gandasi , danda and lathi and
started verbally abusing the appellant and his family. On
objections being raised to the verbal abuse, accused
Bhupendra Singh instigated the co-accused to beat up the
appellant and his family and thereafter all the accused
persons attacked the appellant and his family with the
various weapons that they were carrying. On hearing their

4
‘FIR’ for short.
4

cries, the appellant’s father Jeet Lal, his sister-in-law
Amrawati, his cousin Kalawati and his niece Priyanka ran
out to rescue them, however, they were also beaten up. The
appellant ran into the house in order to save himself,
however, the accused persons rushed into the house and
severely assaulted him with lathi , danda and gandasi . Upon
cries of alarm being raised, several persons reached the spot
and intervened, thereby putting an end to the matter.
5.3 As a result of the assault, the appellant and his family
members and particularly his father Jeet Lal sustained
serious injuries. The injured persons were initially taken to
the primary health centre at Sikrara wherefrom the
appellant’s father Jeet Lal was referred to the Sadar Hospital
considering his severe condition. However, the appellant’s
father Jeet Lal died on the way to the hospital. As per the
post-mortem report, the cause of death was haemorrhage,
shock and coma caused by ante-mortem injuries.

5.4 Upon the death of the appellant’s father, the offence
punishable under Section 304 of the IPC was added to the
FIR.
5

5.5 Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet
was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
5.6 As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions
Court, it was committed to the Court of the Learned Sessions
Judge, Jaunpur where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.
277 of 2012 and was subsequently made over to the Court of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur
for trial.
5.7 The trial court framed charges against the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323
and 324 read with Section 34 and Sections 452, 504 and 506
of the IPC.
5.8 The accused persons denied the charges and asked to
be tried. To bring the charges home, the prosecution
examined 8 witnesses and produced several documents. In
their defence, the accused persons submitted that the
incident was false and fabricated and they had been falsely
implicated in the matter owing to the ongoing land disputes
between the parties.
6

5.9 On the conclusion of the trial, the trial court vide
th
judgment and order dated 10 March 2015 convicted the
accused persons and sentenced them as aforementioned.
5.10
Aggrieved thereby, the accused persons preferred three
criminal appeals before the High Court being Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1078 and 1691 of 2015 and 1094 of 2016.
5.11 A Division Bench of the High Court by the First
Judgment dismissed the criminal appeals and upheld the
th
judgment of the trial court dated 10 March 2015.
5.12 Thereafter, the accused persons preferred an
application under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal
5
Procedure, 1873 being Criminal Misc. Correction Application
No. 2 of 2019 seeking that the criminal appeals be partly
allowed. It was pleaded in the Correction Application that
when the aforesaid judgment had been pronounced in open
court, to the extent of the sentence awarded, the criminal
appeals had been partly allowed and the convictions for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC had been
converted to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Accordingly, the sentence awarded to each of the accused

5
Hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”
7

persons had been reduced as aforementioned. However, it
was further pleaded when the First Judgment was delivered
by the High Court, the criminal appeals had been dismissed.
It was subsequently found that despite the dismissal, the
case status showed that the criminal appeals had been partly
allowed. Therefore, the accused persons prayed that the last
five paragraphs of the First Judgment be corrected to reflect
the order which had been pronounced in open court.
5.13 The High Court by the impugned judgment and order
allowed the Correction Application and modified its First
Judgment as aforementioned.
5.14 Being aggrieved thereby, these appeals.
6. We have heard Mr. Narender Singh Yadav, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Shaurya Krishna,
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. Sushil
Balwada, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2,
and Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.3.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the procedure adopted by the learned Judges
of the Division Bench of the High Court is totally contrary to
8

the provisions of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted
that by the impugned judgment, the High Court has totally
changed its earlier judgment. It is submitted that, under
Section 362 of Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for any Court to
alter or review its earlier judgment except to correct a clerical
or arithmetical error.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,
on the contrary, tried to support the impugned judgment.
9. For appreciating the issue, it will be relevant to refer to
Section 362 of Cr.P.C., which reads thus:
“ 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.”


10. It can thus be seen that, under Section 362 of Cr.P.C.,
once the judgment and final order is signed disposing of a
case, no Court is allowed to alter or review the same except
to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. No doubt that the
High Court while delivering the impugned judgment has said
that it was only correcting a clerical error. However, for
testing the correctness of the said finding, it will be pertinent
9

to refer to certain paragraphs of both the judgments of the
High Court.
11. In its first judgment, the High Court referred to various
injuries sustained by the deceased Jeet Lal and the injured
victims. It is to be noted that insofar as the injuries of
deceased Jeet Lal is concerned, as many as 11 injuries are
recorded. Thereafter, the High Court also referred to the
autopsy report conducted by the Medical Expert, wherein 10
injuries were recorded. Thereafter, the High Court referred to
the evidence of 8 witnesses. It is to be noted that in the
arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants therein
before the High Court, it was submitted that the evidence of
eye witnesses was not reliable and truthful. Rejecting the
said argument, the High Court has observed thus:
“We are not impressed with the said argument
of learned counsel for the appellants in view of the
fact that P.W. 1 informant Lal Bahadur @ Ramyash
Maurya is an injured witness of the incident. His
presence on the date, time and place of incident has
been cogently and unerringly established by the
prosecution. Even his injuries have not been
seriously challenged by the prosecution and he in a
natural and truthful manner has narrated the
entire incident and has assigned specific role to
each of the accused persons of wielding blows by
lathi and danda and assaulting the deceased by
gadansi. Merely because in the later part of his
testimony instead of assigning the role of assault by
10

gadansi, the weapon 'ballam' has been used, will
not discredit his entire testimony. Moreover from a
meticulous scrutiny of his entire evidence as a
whole, in our opinion, he is a truthful and reliable
witness and except minor contradictions which do
not go to the root of the case, his testimony inspires
confidence and cannot be discredited. Furthermore,
his testimony finds complete corroboration from the
statement of P.W.2 Amrawati, who in her statement
has clearly stated that she has not witnessed any
accused-appellant holding a ballam and stated that
her father in law Jeet Lal and Lal Bahadur received
injuries by gadansi.
Now coming to the testimony of P.W.2
Amrawati, who in her statement has clearly stated
that on account of dispute over the measurement of
land on the date of incident at 6:30 a.m, appellants
Bhupendra, Moti Lal and Prahlad along with non-
appellant Sunil had on instigation of Bhupendra,
assaulted them and at the time of incident,
Bhupendra was holding a gadansi whereas Moti Lal,
Sunil and Prahlad were armed with lathi. She has
further stated that on account of alarm raised by
her father in law and brother in-law, she, her
daughter Priyanka and sister-in law Kalawati
(nanad) rushed to rescue them and intervened in
the matter and they were also assaulted by the
assailants and when ·his brother in-law P.W. l Lal
Bahadur@ Ramyash Maurya with an intention to
rescue them, entered in the house followed by the
assailants who also assaulted his dewar with
gadansi and lathi because of which they received
serious injuries and when the assailants had left
the scene of incident, she along with her father-in-
law, brother-in-law, daughter and sister-in law
(nanad) were brought at the police station and after
registration of the case, they were sent for medical
examination and on account of serious injuries
received by her and her father-in-law, they were
referred to Sadar Hospital where his father-in-law
succumbed to his injuries. The said witness has
also been subjected to rigorous cross-examination.
11

However, the defence has not been able to elicit any
material contradictions in her statement and she
has corroborated the prosecution story on material
particulars and nothing could be elicited by the
defence to doubt his credibility. The defence has not
challenged her presence at the time of incident and
the injuries on her person completely establishes
the complicity of the appellants in the present case.
As such we are of the opinion that she is a
reliable witness and has completely corroborated
the prosecution story and the trial court has rightly
relied upon her evidence. The defence has not been
able to point out any inconsistency or material
contradictions in her statement and finds
corroboration from the medical evidence as well as
the testimony of P.W. l informant Lal Bahadur @
Ramyash Maurya. In the backdrop of said
circumstances, the argument of learned counsel for
the appellants that the testimony of P.W.2 Amrawati
does not inspire confidence, is not tenable and is
liable to be discarded.”

12. Thereafter, the High Court referred to the arguments
advanced on behalf of the appellants therein with regard to
discrepancies in the medical examination report prepared by
Dr. Manoj Kumar Chaurasiya (PW-3). Rejecting the said
contention, the High Court observed that the opinion of a
medical expert should be accepted to support the direct
evidence in the case. Thereafter, finally the High Court
concluded thus:
“From the ocular testimony, it is clinchingly
established that the victim was assaulted by lathi,
danda and gadansi and even from careful perusal of
12

the postmortem report, the injuries of the said
weapons find corroboration. Therefore, in view of
inconsistency in the nature of injuries found in the
medical examination and postmortem report, the
otherwise consistent testimony of the injured
witnesses cannot be thrown over board. As such, we
are of the opinion that the said argument of the
learned counsel for the appellants also does not
shake the credibility of the witnesses.
The next argument of learned counsel for the
appellants is that since the weapon of assault could
not be recovered by the police and even the blood-
stained clothes have not been handed over to the
police, therefore, the prosecution story becomes
doubtful. The said argument of learned counsel for
the appellants also does not appeal to us in view of
the fact that ocular testimony of the witnesses
clearly establishes the prosecution story beyond any
reasonable doubt and, therefore, in view of the
lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in
making the recovery of the weapon and producing
the clothes, whole of the prosecution story
supported by the witnesses cannot be thrown over
board. The two injured witnesses whose injuries
and presence has been clearly established by the
prosecution and when the defence has not been
able to elicit any material contradictions in their
statements pointing towards the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution story cannot be discarded.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of
the opinion that the prosecution has successfully
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against
the appellants and their conviction is liable to be
affirmed.
This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
Bhupendra Singh, appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 1078 of 2015 is in jail. He shall serve out
the remaining part of his sentence.
Moti Lal, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
1691 of 2015 and Prahlad, appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 1094 of 2016 are on bail. Their bail
13

bonds are cancelled and their sureties discharged.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur is forthwith
directed to take them into custody and send them to
jail for serving out the remaining part of their
sentences.”

13.
Whereas, in the impugned judgment, the High Court
observed thus:
“We have perused the record and the court
register maintained by the Bench Secretary which
briefly records the order passed by the Court in
different cases and upon perusing the relevant page
of the court register dated 21.05.2018, we find that
the Bench Secretary had also recorded in the
register that all the three appeals had been partly
allowed. The notes made by us on the paper books
also support the case of the applicants/ appellants.
To us, it appears that the last five paragraphs of
the judgement and order sought to be corrected
were wrongly typed out inadvertently.
Thus, since the facts that the mistakes which
have crept into the final judgement and order and
the last five paragraphs of the judgement and order
sought to be corrected are not in consonance with
the operative order pronounced in the court, are
admitted to the learned counsel for the informant
and learned A.G.A. for the State who had made
similar notes on their file after hearing had been
concluded, the correction application is allowed.
The last five paragraphs of the judgement and
order sought to be corrected are deleted and
substituted by the following paragraphs :-
Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, it
follows that although in the F.I.R. it was alleged that
the accused-appellants were present at the place of
occurrence armed with lathis and gandasi and had
attacked the deceased and the injured namely Jeet
Lal, Amrawati, Lal Bahadur, Priyanka and Kalawati.
However, their injury reports (Ext.Ka.2 to Ka. 6) do
not contain any injuries which could be caused by
14

spears. Moreover, the doctor has opined that the
injuries received by the deceased as well as the
injured were caused by blunt objects except injury
no. 4 sustained by the deceased which could have
been caused by a ballam as deposed by the
prosecution witnesses which was not assigned to
any of the accused in the F.I.R.
Upon a wholesome consideration of the facts of
the case, the attending circumstances and the
evidence on record, both oral as well as
documentary, we find that a dispute had taken
place between the parties over the measurement of
the land of the informant's grand mother which the
accused-appellants claimed to be their property and
although it has been alleged by the prosecution that
on the date of the incident, the measurement of the
land in dispute was to be carried out by an Officer
of the Revenue Department but the prosecution
failed to lead any evidence to show that the date on
which the occurrence had taken place was fixed for
measurement of land of informant's grand mother
by an officer of the Revenue Department which
thus, indicates that the prosecution has
suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence. The
incident, in our opinion, appears to be a result of
sudden provocation and at the heat of the moment
and thus, the recorded conviction of the accused-
appellants deserves to be converted to one u/ s 304
Part II I.P. C. and the imprisonment of life awarded
to them palliated to a lesser period of imprisonment.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
The conviction of Bhupendra Singh, Moti Lal
and Prahlad, appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.
1078 of 2015, 1691 of 2015 and 1094 of 2016
respectively is converted to one u/s 304 Part II
I.P.C. The sentence of life imprisonment awarded to
Bhupendra Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
1078 of 2015 is reduced to ten years rigorous
imprisonment. However, he shall pay a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- as cost to the heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased Jeet Lal within six
months of his release from jail without prejudice to
15

the right of the relatives of the deceased to seek
compensation under the provisions of The Uttar
Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014.
Considering the fact that the appellants, Moti
Lal and Prahlad, appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.
1691 of 2015 and 1094 of 2016 respectively were
aged around 50 years at the time of the occurrence,
we are of the opinion that the ends of justice shall
be met if the the sentences of life imprisonment
awarded to them is palliated to five years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- each and in
case of default in payment of fine, three months
additional rigorous imprisonment each.
Bhupendra Singh, appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 1078 of 2015 is in jail. He shall be
released after serving out the remaining part of his
sentence.
Moti Lal and Prahlad, appellants in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1691 of 2015 and 1094 of 2016
respectively who were taken into custody and sent
to jail on account of the mistakes in the operative
portion of the judgement and order, shall be
released forthwith if they have served the sentence
of five years imprisonment.”

14. It could thus clearly be seen that whereas in the First
Judgment, the High Court clearly rejected the contention as
raised on behalf of the appellants therein and confirmed the
conviction under Section 302 of IPC, the entire reasoning is
changed in the impugned judgment. The High Court, in the
impugned judgment, came to a finding that the incident
appeared to be a result of a sudden provocation and occurred
in the heat of a moment and therefore converted the
16

conviction from Section 302 of IPC to Part-II of Section 304 of
IPC.
15. We have already referred to the provisions of Section
362 of Cr.P.C. Even upon a plain reading of the provisions of
Section 362 of Cr.P.C., the procedure adopted by the High
Court was totally untenable.
16. In the case of Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and
6
Another , this Court has considered what would fall within
the meaning of a clerical and arithmetical error and observed
thus:
“ 4. ………A clerical or arithmetical error is an error
occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the
court. It represents that which the court never
intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face
of the record and does not depend for its discovery
on argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is
a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a
mistake in writing or typing. Master Construction Co.
(P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [AIR 1966 SC 1047 : (1966)
3 SCR 99 : (1966) 17 STC 360].”

17. Thereafter, this Court observed thus:
“ 5. The appellant points out that he invoked the
inherent power of the High Court saved by Section
482 of the Code and that notwithstanding the
prohibition imposed by Section 362 the High Court
had power to grant relief. Now it is well settled that
the inherent power of the court cannot be exercised
for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the

6
(1981) 1 SCC 500
17

Code ( Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1962 SC
1208 : 1962 Supp 2 SCR 817 : (1962) 2 Cri LJ 288]
). It is true that the prohibition in Section 362
against the court altering or reviewing its judgment
is subject to what is “otherwise provided by this
Court or by any other law for the time being in
force”. Those words, however, refer to those
provisions only where the court has been expressly
authorised by the Code or other law to alter or
review its judgment. The inherent power of the court
is not contemplated by the saving provision
contained in Section 362 and, therefore, the attempt
to invoke that power can be of no avail.”

18. An exercise similar to the one done by the Allahabad
High Court in the instant matter had come up for
consideration before this Court in the case of Naresh and
7
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh . In the said case also,
th
the High Court had pronounced the judgment on 25
February 1980 confirming the conviction as recorded by the
trial court under Section 302 of IPC. Subsequently however,
th
the High Court by its judgment dated 14 April 1980
converted the conviction to one under Section 304 Part I of
IPC and reduced the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 7
years. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations
of this Court:

7
(1981) 3 SCCC 74
18

19

Code, 1860. We are greatly concerned that the High
Court should have committed this grievous error.
There is, however, nothing that we can do about it
at this juncture as the State has not chosen to file
any appeal against the order dated April 14, 1980.”

19. It could thus clearly be seen that this Court had
observed that the similar exercise undertaken by the High
Court in that case was in contravention of the provisions of
Section 362 of Cr.P.C. This Court had expressed its great
concern that the High Court should have committed this
grievous error. We fail to understand as to how the High
Court, in the present case also, in spite of the plain and
unambigious words used in the provisions of Section 362 of
Cr.P.C., has committed such an error.
20. We have no other option but to allow the appeals filed
by the complainant.
21. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) Criminal Appeal Nos.1153-1155 of 2021 are allowed;
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.1175 of 2021 is dismissed;
th
(iii) The impugned judgment and order dated 8
February 2019 is quashed and set aside inasmuch as
it was not competent for the High Court to have
20

st
reviewed its judgment and order dated 21 May
2018;
(iv) The accused, if they have not undergone their
sentence as recorded by the High Court in its first
st
judgment dated 21 May 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;
(v) We, however, reserve the right of the accused persons
st
to challenge the judgment and order dated 21 May
2018. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be
considered on its own merits.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.



..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)



.............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
21