Summary
The Allahabad High Court, having dismissed the accused's appeals and affirmed their convictions under s.302 IPC by judgment dated 21.05.2018, later allowed a 'correction application' under s.362 CrPC, replaced the last five paragraphs, converted the convictions to s.304 Part II IPC and reduced the sentences. The Court held that s.362 bars a court from altering or reviewing its signed judgment except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, that substituting new reasoning and a different conviction is not such a correction, and that inherent power cannot be used to do what s.362 prohibits. The complainant's appeals were allowed and the impugned order quashed, with liberty to the accused to challenge the original judgment.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could, under s.362 CrPC, alter its signed judgment affirming convictions under s.302 IPC by substituting convictions under s.304 Part II with reduced sentences, on the footing that the operative portion had been wrongly typed.
- What constitutes a clerical or arithmetical error within s.362 CrPC.
- Whether the accused's appeal seeking acquittal could be allowed.
Provisions considered
- Section 362, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Save as otherwise provided by the Code or any other law, no court, once it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review it except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The High Court's wholesale change of reasoning and conviction was not the correction of a clerical error, and the procedure adopted was totally untenable on a plain reading of the provision. (¶¶ 9, 10, 14, 15, 19)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Inherent power cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically prohibits; the words 'save as otherwise provided' in s.362 refer only to express statutory authorisation to alter or review a judgment and do not encompass inherent power (Sooraj Devi applied). (¶ 17)
Held
- Under s.362 CrPC, once a judgment or final order disposing of a case is signed, no court may alter or review it except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. (¶¶ 10, 15)
- A clerical or arithmetical error is one caused by an accidental slip or omission, representing what the court never intended to say, apparent on the face of the record and not dependent on argument; an arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation and a clerical error a mistake in writing or typing (Sooraj Devi). (¶ 16)
- The inherent power of the court saved by s.482 CrPC cannot be invoked to alter or review a judgment in the face of the prohibition in s.362. (¶ 17)
- Where the First Judgment had expressly rejected the accused's contentions, held the injured eyewitnesses reliable and confirmed the convictions under s.302 IPC, replacing its concluding paragraphs with a finding that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and that the incident arose from sudden provocation, and converting the conviction to s.304 Part II with reduced sentences, changed the entire reasoning and was a review in contravention of s.362, not the correction of a typing mistake; as in Naresh v. State of U.P., the High Court committed a grievous error. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19)
- The impugned judgment was quashed as the High Court was not competent to review its judgment of 21.05.2018; the accused, if they have not undergone the sentence under the First Judgment, must surrender within four weeks, while their right to challenge the judgment of 21.05.2018 on merits was reserved. The accused's own appeal for acquittal was dismissed. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1153-1155 of 2021 (by the complainant) allowed; Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2021 (by the accused) dismissed. High Court judgment dated 08.02.2019 quashed and set aside. Accused to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur within four weeks to undergo the remaining sentence under the judgment dated 21.05.2018, with liberty to challenge that judgment on merits.