SC says procedure of high court to modify punishment totally untenable, junks order

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the procedure adopted by the Allahabad High Court in reviewing and modifying the conviction of three persons was "totally untenable" and set it aside. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih referred to Section 362 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and said the provision stipulates once the judgement and final order was signed disposing of a case, no court was allowed to alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical 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 CrPC, has committed such an error," the bench said.

The top court's verdict came on separate appeals filed by the complainant of the case challenging the high court's order.

One of the accused approached the apex court for acquittal.

The bench noted the high court, in its verdict delivered in May 2018 in the matter, dismissed the appeals filed by the three accused persons.

Before the high court, the accused challenged a trial court order which sentenced them to life imprisonment after holding them guilty for the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC.

In February 2019, the high court modified its May 2018 verdict on a plea of the accused persons and converted their conviction to the lesser charge under Section 304 part II of IPC dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The high court then sentenced one of them to 10 years jail whereas the rest were given five years in jail each.

In a May 2018 judgement, the high court rejected the contention of the accused and confirmed their conviction for the murder.

The top court observed high court, in its February 2019 order, came to a finding that the incident appeared to be a result of a sudden provocation and converted their conviction to part-II of section 304 of IPC.

"Even upon a plain reading of the provisions of Section 362 of CrPC, the procedure adopted by the high court was totally untenable," the bench said.

While allowing the appeals filed by the complainant, the bench said, "The impugned judgment and order dated February 8, 2019 is quashed and set aside inasmuch as it was not competent for the high court to have reviewed its judgment and order dated May 21, 2018."

The convicts were directed to surrender before the chief judicial magistrate, Jaunpur, within four weeks to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

"We, however, reserve the right of the accused persons to challenge the judgment and order dated May 21, 2018. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits," the bench said.

It came on record that there was a long standing land dispute between two families and the accused persons assaulted a man who died in May 2012.