IMPORTANT POINT
Review of Judgment – Under Section 362 of Cr.P.C., once judgment and final order is signed disposing of a case, no Court is allowed to alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

JUDGMENT :

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. These criminal appeals challenge the judgement and final order dated 8th February 2019 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 2 of 2019 which had been preferred by the accused persons namely, Bhupendra Singh, Moti Lal and Prahlad.

2. The Correction Application purportedly sought a clarification of a previous judgment and final order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 21st May 2018¹[Hereinafter referred to as “First Judgment”], by which the High Court had dismissed the criminal appeals preferred by the accused persons and had affirmed the judgment passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 2012²[Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’] wherein the trial court had convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with 34, and Sections 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860³[‘IPC’ for short] and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life.

3. Subsequently however, the High Court by way of the impugned judgment and order allowed the Correction Application preferred by the accused persons and modified its First Judgment. While so modifying its First Judgment, the High Court partly allowed the criminal appeals thereby converting the conviction awarded to the accused persons to one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and consequently sentenced accused Bhupendra Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and sentenced accused Moti Lal and Prahlad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

4. We have two sets of criminal appeals before us. The first set of criminal appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 1153-1155 of 2021 has been preferred by one Ramyash @ Lal Bahadur, the original complainant, taking exception to the modification undertaken by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order. The second appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1175 of 2021 has been filed by accused Bhupendra Singh with a plea for acquittal. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties will be referred to as per their positions in the first set of appeals.

5. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are as follows:-

5.1 On 13th May 2012 at about 7:30 a.m., the appellant lodged a complaint at P.S. Sikrara, District Jaunpur against the accused persons, alleging therein that owing to a previous enmity between the families of the appellant and the accused persons, on that very morning at around 06:30 a.m., the accused persons had verbally and physically assaulted the appellant and his family members with various weapons which led to severe injuries being suffered by the appellant and his family members. On the basis of the complaint, a First Information Report⁴[‘FIR’ for short] being Case Crime No. 290 of 2012 was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

5.2 According to the prosecution story, the families of the appellant and the accused persons were related by blood and there was a long-standing land dispute between the two families. The dispute had led to a lot of litigation between the parties, pursuant to which the land belonging to the appellant’s grandmother was set to be measured and demarcated on the date of the incident. Owing to the existing animosity, in the early morning of 13th May 2012, the accused persons arrived at the appellant’s house armed with various weapons such as gandasi, danda and lathi and started verbally abusing the appellant and his family. On objections being raised to the verbal abuse, accused Bhupendra Singh instigated the co-accused to beat up the appellant and his family and thereafter all the accused persons attacked the appellant and his family with the various weapons that they were carrying. On hearing their cries, the appellant’s father Jeet Lal, his sister-in-law Amrawati, his cousin Kalawati and his ni