Supreme Court flags misuse of Section 362 CrPC by Allahabad High Court in murder conviction case.
Case in NewsSection 362 CrPC misused to alter murder conviction and Supreme Court of India slams Allahabad High Court. |
Case Overview
Case Name: Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur vs State of UP and Another Etc.
In this case the Supreme Court of India strongly condemned the Allahabad High Court for modifying a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to a lesser offence under Section 304 Part II IPC by invoking Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) . A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih held that the act of the High Court was a misuse of its limited powers under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) .
Key Aspects
- In May 2018, the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) .
- In February 2019 on a “correction application ” it altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC .
- The High Court claimed this change was a clerical correction .
- The Supreme Court of India found that the entire reasoning and conclusion had been revised and not merely corrected .
- Reference was made to precedents: Smt. Sooraj Devi v Pyare Lal (1981) 1 SCC 500 and Naresh v. State of UP (1981) 3 SCC 74 .
Legal Insights
- Section 362 CrPC : Prohibits any alteration or review of a final judgment or order once signed except for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors.
- Section 302 IPC : Deals with punishment for murder; carries death or life imprisonment.
- Section 304 Part II IPC: Applies to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the act is done without intention but with knowledge; punishment is lighter.
- The High Court’s modification altered the nature and gravity of the offence, which is beyond the scope of Section 362 CrPC.
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court of India set aside the modified judgment of the Allahabad High Court stating it a clear violation of Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) . The bench expressed serious concern over such judicial overreach and reaffirmed that substantive changes in a judgment cannot be masked as clerical corrections .
Source
