Supreme Court Holds High Court Cannot Recast Conviction Through Clerical Correction Under S.362 CrPC

A two‑judge Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih heard appeals arising from a sessions conviction and a subsequent High Court order that purported to "correct" its earlier judgment. The appeals challenged whether the Allahabad High Court was competent to modify its earlier judgment of 21 May 2018— which had affirmed convictions for offences including murder—by a correction application under Section 362 Cr.P.C., converting convictions to a lesser offence and reducing sentences.

The Court allowed the appeals of the informant and quashed the High Court’s impugned order dated 8 February 2019. It held that once a judgment disposing of a case was signed, a court could not alter or review it except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error, and that the High Court’s exercise went beyond such permissible correction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The inherent power of the court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code … 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.” The Supreme Court noted that the procedure adopted by the High Court was “totally untenable” and relied on precedents including Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Naresh v. State of U.P. to reinforce the limits of Section 362.

Background: The dispute arose from an early‑morning assault on 13 May 2012 at Sikrara, Jaunpur, during which the informant and several family members were allegedly attacked amid a long‑running land dispute. The informant’s father, Jeet Lal, sustained multiple ante‑mortem injuries and died en route to hospital; post‑mortem recorded haemorrhage, shock and coma. The FIR initially charged offences under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 IPC; after the death, Section 304 was added and the trial court framed charges including Section 302 IPC. On 10 March 2015 the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment; the Allahabad High Court by its First Judgment dated 21 May 2018 dismissed criminal appeals and affirmed conviction under Section 302. The High Court’s earlier reasoning had accepted ocular testimony as reliable, observing that the informant “is a truthful and reliable witness” and that his testimony “inspires confidence”.

Thereafter the accused filed a correction application under Section 362 Cr.P.C. seeking to rectify what they described as a clerical mistake in the operative portion; the High Court allowed the application on 8 February 2019, converted the convictions to Section 304 Part II IPC and reduced sentences (ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for one accused, five years for two others), citing entries in the court register and notes as reflecting the order pronounced in open court. The informant appealed to the Supreme Court and the accused filed a separate appeal seeking acquittal.

The Supreme Court analysed Section 362’s plain words and authorities, held that the High Court had in substance altered its earlier judicial conclusion rather than correcting a clerical slip, and therefore set aside the 8 February 2019 order. The Court allowed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1153–1155 of 2021, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2021, quashed the impugned High Court order insofar as it purported to review the earlier judgment, and directed that the accused, if they had not already served the sentence as recorded in the First Judgment dated 21 May 2018, surrender within four weeks to undergo the remaining period. The Court reserved to the accused the right to challenge the First Judgment on its merits in a separate appeal.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1153-1155 of 2021; Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2021 Case Title: Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another etc. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Narender Singh Yadav For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Krishna (for Respondent No.1); Mr. Sushil Balwada (for Respondent No.2); Ms. Nanita Sharma (for Respondent No.3)