Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 67 of 2002
PETITIONER:
Jagvir Singh & Ors
RESPONDENT:
State (Delhi Admn.)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/06/2007
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court upholding the
conviction of appellants as done by learned Additional
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.25/1984 for offence
punishable under Sections 342, 365 and 330 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’).
Learned Single Judge observed that conviction was not
questioned and what was submitted related to quantum of
sentence. The High Court noted that he required learned
counsel appearing for the appellants to address the Court on
question of conviction, which was denied. Only quantum of
sentence aspect was highlighted. The High Court felt that in
view of the concessions made relating to the conviction, the
sentence cannot be held to be disproportionate keeping in view
the nature of the offence.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there
appears to be some confusion because there was never any
instruction given by the appellants not to question the
conviction as recorded. In fact, according to them, the
conviction was without any material and basis.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand submitted that having conceded before the High Court
that the conviction was in order, the present appeal is mis-
conceived.
4. If really there was no concession, the only course open to
the appellants was to move the High Court in line with what
has been said in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas
Nayak and Anr (1982 (2) SCC 463). In Bhavnagar University
v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (2002 AIR SCW 4939)
the view in the said case was reiterated by observing that
statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing,
recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the
facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by
affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the
happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a
judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is
still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of
the very Judge who has made the record. That is the only way
to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the
matter must necessarily end there. It is not open to the
appellants to contend before this Court to the contrary.
5. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter. However,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
we make it clear that if any motion is made before the High
Court as to the claim that no concession was made, the same
shall be considered in the proper perspective in accordance
with law.
6. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.