Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 gathered attention as it raised important concerns about judicial discipline, finality of judgments and limits of judicial power under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code. The controversy arose from a post-judgment correction that altered the nature of conviction and sentence and questioned whether courts can revise their pronouncements after delivering a final verdict. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 Introduction

The case of Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 dealt with the sanctity of a final judgment of Court and extent to which corrections can be made under procedural law. The case originated from a violent land dispute that escalated to murder and progressed through the judicial system which raised constitutional and procedural questions about whether substantive alterations could be made to a judgment under the guise of a correction application.

Download Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 Free PDF

The case at hand centres around the validity and scope of a correction made by the High Court under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code after it had upheld the conviction of the accused for murder. The case raised important questions on whether a court can alter a concluded judgment based on alleged discrepancies between oral pronouncement and written record especially when such alterations affect the nature and gravity of the conviction. The following are the facts of Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh -

Background of the Case

This case originated from a correction application filed after the High Court upheld the conviction upheld by the Trial Court in a murder case. The correction led to a significant modification of the original judgment which prompted both the complainant and accused to approach the Supreme Court.

Incident Leading to FIR

The case originated from a violent attack related to a land dispute. The accused entered the house of the complainant and physically assaulted several family members.

• The incident occurred on 13th May 2012, around 6:30 a.m.
• The accused were armed with gandasi, danda and lathi.
• The assault targeted multiple family members including the complainant.

Details of Assault and Death

The violent assault led to serious injuries to many and ultimately led to the death of the complainant's father.

• Bhupendra allegedly instigated co-accused to attack.
• Victims included Jeet Lal, Amrawati, Kalawati and Priyanka.
• Jeet Lal died from injuries sustained in the assault.
• Post-mortem attributed death to hemorrhage and shock due to ante-mortem injuries.

Investigation and Trial

Following the incident and subsequent death of Jeet Lal, the police upgraded the case from simple assault to culpable homicide and later murder.

• FIR initially registered under Section 323, Section 324, Section 452, Section 504, Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.
• Section 304 of Indian Penal Code was added after Jeet Lal’s death.
• Chargesheet was filed and case was committed to Sessions Court.
• The trial was conducted under Section 302, Section 323, Section 324 r/w Section 34, Section 452, Section 504 and Section 506 IPC.

Conviction by the Trial Court

After examining witnesses and evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and imposed the harshest sentence under Indian Penal Code for murder.

• Trial court convicted accused on 10th March 2015.
• Life imprisonment awarded for murder charge.
• Conviction based on 8 Prosecution witnesses and medical evidence.

Appeals Before High Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the accused challenged decision and approached the High Court. However, the High Court maintained the original sentence and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

• Criminal Appeals were filed.
• Appeals were dismissed on 21st May 2018.
• Convictions and sentences confirmed.

Dispute Over Pronouncement and Correction

An important dispute arose over what the High Court had actually said in court versus what it recorded in the written judgment which led to the correction application.

• The accused's alleged oral pronouncement differed from the written version.
• The High Court had reduced conviction to Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.
• The Accused filed correction application under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code to reflect that.

Revised Judgment of the High Court

On allowing the correction application, the High Court altered its original judgment and reduced the convictions and sentences accordingly.

• The High Court issued revised judgment on 8th February 2019.
• Convictions changed and sentences significantly reduced.

Present Appeal in Supreme Court

Now, both parties are before the Supreme Court, one challenging the reduction and the other sought full acquittal, making the legality of such a correction the central issue.

• The complainant challenges the modification in judgment.
• The accused (Bhupendra Singh) seeks full acquittal in a separate appeal.

Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 Legal Issues

The following issues were also addressed in Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025:

• Interpretation and Applicability of Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.:

The primary issue revolves around whether the High Court had the authority to review or alter its own judgment after it had been pronounced, despite the prohibition in Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code.

• Scope of Inherent Power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

The Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh case also explores the limitations on the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. to review or alter a judgment.

• Distinction Between Clerical/Arithmetical Errors and Substantive Review of Judgment

Another important issue in this case was distinguishing between clerical or arithmetical errors and substantive changes to a judgment.

Section 362 and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code played an important role in Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025. The following are analysis of these provisions:

• Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code

Section 362 (Now Section 403 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) prohibits the court from altering or reviewing its judgment or order once it has been pronounced, except for clerical or arithmetical errors. The provision aims to ensure finality in judicial decisions and prevent the court from revisiting its orders unless specifically authorized by law or to correct minor mistakes.

• Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code

Section 482 (Now Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) grants inherent powers to the High Court to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. However, in Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh it was clarified that the inherent power under Section 482 cannot be exercised to override or contravene the specific provisions of the Cr.P.C., such as Section 362, which restricts the review of judgments.

Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 Judgment and Impact

In the case of Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 23rd April 2025, a 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih examined the application of Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code which prohibits a court from altering or reviewing its judgment once pronounced, except where expressly permitted by law.

The Supreme Court referred to previous decisions, especially Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Naresh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where similar issues were addressed. In Smt. Sooraj Devi case the Court explained that clerical or arithmetical errors are unintentional mistakes, not requiring debate and must be corrected within a clear legal framework. The Court highlighted that the inherent power of the Court could not be invoked to review judgments in ways prohibited by law, including in cases like Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.

Similarly in Naresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court had mistakenly altered its conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, deeming it a clerical error. The Supreme Court disapproved and stated that the High Court was not authorized to review or alter its decision in this manner under Section 362.

The Supreme Court in Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh case observed that the High Court had erroneously reviewed its judgment despite the explicit prohibition in Section 362. The Court expressed its concern over this error and ruled that the appeals filed by the complainant should be allowed. The judgment dated 8th February 2019 was quashed and set aside as it contravened Section 362.

The Court directed that the accused, if they had not yet undergone the sentence imposed by the High Court’s initial judgment should surrender within four weeks to complete their sentence. The accused retained the right to challenge the original judgment in a separate appeal which would be heard on its merits.

Thus, the Supreme Court in Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh concluded by disposing of any pending applications and provided directions regarding the execution of the sentence.

Conclusion

In Ramyash Lal Bahadur vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 the Supreme Court decision on 23rd April, 2025 reaffirmed the bar on judicial review of final judgments under Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that any substantial change beyond clerical errors is impermissible. The Court nullified the revised judgment of the High Court and directed enforcement of the original conviction. The case reinforces the principle that finality in judicial decisions must be preserved to uphold public confidence in the legal system.