- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Naresh And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were tried for the murder of one Bahadur. Naresh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for having inflicted a single but fatal head-blow, while the remaining accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. All were sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.
On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court (J.P. Chaturvedi and R.C. Srivastava, JJ.) delivered judgment on 25 February 1980. The court expressly affirmed that Naresh intended to kill the deceased and upheld every conviction and sentence.
Subsequently, on an application by Naresh, the same High Court Bench passed an order on 14 April 1980 purporting to correct a “clerical mistake” by substituting Naresh’s conviction under Section 302 IPC with a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC and reducing the sentence to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The State did not appeal against this alteration. Criminal Appeals Nos. 197 and 198 of 1981, filed under Article 136 of the Constitution (apparently by the other convicted accused), came before the Supreme Court, which delivered the present opinion.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court could, after signing its judgment, alter a conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC in purported exercise of its power to correct clerical errors, notwithstanding the express bar contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Whether, on appraisal of the evidence accepted by both the trial court and the High Court, any ground existed for the Supreme Court to interfere with the convictions and sentences of the appellants under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Improper alteration of judgment by the High Court. The Supreme Court voiced “grave concern” and “serious displeasure” over the High Court’s order dated 14 April 1980. It emphasized that Section 362 CrPC forbids any court, after signing its judgment, from altering or reviewing it except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The original judgment had unequivocally found that Naresh intended to kill the deceased; therefore, there was no clerical mistake to correct. The alteration from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I was held to be “wholly wrong” and “in contravention of Section 362.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court noted that it was powerless to set aside that order because the State had not appealed.
2. Evaluation of evidence and scope under Article 136. Counsel Shri S.P. Singh took the Court through the evidence. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court, accepted the testimony of the four eyewitnesses, and concluded that the grounds urged were confined to re-appreciation of evidence—a task the Court would not ordinarily undertake in an appeal by special leave unless there was manifest injustice. Accordingly, no interference was warranted.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: Criminal Appeals Nos. 197 and 198 of 1981 were dismissed. The convictions and life sentences of the appellants (other than Naresh) under Section 302/302 read with 149 IPC stand affirmed. The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the High Court’s post-judgment alteration but took no corrective action due to the absence of a State appeal.
Implications: The decision leaves the altered conviction of Naresh intact for procedural reasons but serves as a cautionary pronouncement that Section 362 CrPC strictly prohibits substantive changes to a signed judgment under the guise of correcting clerical errors. No new legal precedent was formally established, yet the Court’s censure underscores the mandatory nature of Section 362.
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.— We are afraid we have to voice our grave concern and express our serious displeasure at the course of events in the High Court in the present case. We consider it our duty to do so. We are not (sic) a little disturbed by what has been done in the High Court. The High Court, some weeks after pronouncing its judgment in a criminal appeal, altered a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which it had confirmed to one under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, ostensibly exercising its power to correct clerical errors but ignoring Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which expressly provides “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”.
2. Naresh, one of the appellants, was convicted by the trial court of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the rest of the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The accused preferred appeals to the High Court.J.P Chaturvedi and R.C Srivastava, JJ., who heard the appeals, while discussing the question of the culpability of the appellant Naresh observed as follows: “It may be pointed out that Bahadur (deceased) had a single injury on his head. This blow was inflicted by Naresh (appellant) and it resulted in fractures of frontal and parietal bones into eight pieces. The blow was very effective and powerful and as such, so far as Naresh (appellant) is concerned, we have no doubt that he intended to kill Bahadur and therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code”. After recording this categoric finding about the culpability of Naresh, the High Court proceeded to discuss the case against the rest of the accused. Then, in the ultimate para of the judgment, which we may call the operative part of the judgment, the High Court again said about Naresh: “His conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder are affirmed”. The judgment of the High Court was pronounced on February 25, 1980. Thereafter on an application filed by the appellant Naresh, the High Court made the following order on April 14, 1980:
“The application is allowed as there is a clerical mistake in the operative part of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1975 regarding the conviction and sentence of appellant Naresh. The sentence, “but his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder are affirmed” be substituted by the sentence: “He is convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years”.
We are entirely at a loss to understand the order dated April 14, 1980. In their judgment dated February 25, 1980 while discussing the case against Naresh the learned Judges had given a specific and express finding that he intended to kill the deceased Bahadur and, therefore, had committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The operative part of the judgment also said the same thing. We do not understand what the learned Judges mean when they state in their order dated April 14,1980, “there is a clerical mistake in the operative part of the judgment”. The High Court was wholly wrong in altering the judgment pronounced by them disposing of the criminal appeals. That was clearly in contravention of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What was worse, the High Court acted in purported exercise of the power to correct clerical mistakes when in fact there was none. The conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was perfectly correct and the conviction had been rightly affirmed by the High Court in the first instance. There was no occasion at all for the purported exercise of power to correct a clerical mistake and alter the conviction under Section 302 to one under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 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.
3. Shri S.P Singh has taken us through the relevant evidence. We are unable to find any reason to reject the evidence of the four eyewitnesses. Their evidence has been accepted by both the trial court and the High Court. The questions raised relate to appreciation of evidence and we find no ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Criminal Appeals Nos. 197 and 198 of 1981 are accordingly dismissed.
Alert