Bajendra Layak vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1948 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

                            Cr. M. P. No. 390 of 2020

1.Bajendra Layak, son of Bishnu Layak
2.Dinesh Layak, son of late Makran Layak
      Both residents of village Petsar, PO Jarmundi, PS Jarmundi, District
Dumka, Jharkhand                                        ...... Petitioners
                               Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                          ...... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Petitioners     : None
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. PP
                          Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP
                            --------------
                                                                  ORDER

th 05 May 2023

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by Bajendra Layak and Dinesh Layak who were appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 269 of 2009.

2. By judgment dated 11th November 2019 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 270 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 149 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 212 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 269 of 2009 Bajendra Layak has been convicted and sentenced to RI for 5 years under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Dinesh Layak has been convicted and sentenced to RI for two years under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In paragraph no.29 of the judgment dated 11 th November 2019 this Court has held as under:

"29. The appellant, namely, Bajendra Layak has caused injury on the leg of Shambhu Yadav and the appellant, namely, Dinesh Layak has assaulted him with garasa on his hand. The injury nos. (II) & (III) are simple in nature but the injury no. (I) was grievous. The injury found by PW-7 on Shambhu Yadav corroborates the allegation of assault by Bajendra Layak and Dinesh Layak on Shambhu Yadav. The injury caused by Bajendra Layak has been found grievous whereas the injury which is attributable to Dinesh Layak was simple in nature. However, the injuries caused by them are not likely to cause death and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants, namely, Bajendra

Layak and Dinesh Layak in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 269 of 2009 under section 326 IPC is set aside. The appellant, namely, Bajendra Layak is convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years under section 325 IPC and the appellant, namely, Dinesh Layak is convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 2 years under section 324 IPC."

4. In the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, Bajendra Layak has put forth a plea that he caused injury on the leg of Shambhu Yadav. Similarly, Dinesh Layak has tried to plead that he assaulted Shambhu Yadav with a garasa on his hand. These petitioners have therefore contended that since their conviction under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code has been set-aside in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 269 of 2009, conviction of Bajendra Layak under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Dinesh Layak under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code are required to be modified and they be acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against them.

5. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no Court after signing of the judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.

6. Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure starts with the saving clause that if otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, the said limitation shall apply to every criminal Court.

7. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:

"362. Court not to alter judgment.

Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."

8. As the pleadings in the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition would reveal, in the garb of modification of the judgment dated 11 th November 2019 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 269 of 2009, the petitioners are seeking review of the judgment dated 11th November 2019.

9. Apparently, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 05th May 2023 Tanuj/ NAFR