STATE OF HARYANA Vs. PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is very unfortunate that a controversy has arisen following the judgment sought to be reviewed in Criminal Appeals Nos. 544-45 of 1986 rendered by this Bench on 31st January, 1989 : (reported in AIR 1989 SC 937 : 1989 Cri LJ 1246), whereby this Court while confirming the conviction of both the respondents/ accused reduced the sentence of imprisonment in respect of each of the respondents from 10 years to 5 years by invoking the proviso to S. 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code observing "the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the conduct of the victim girl, in our view, do not call for the minimum sentence as prescribed under S. 376(2)". The State of Haryana has filed the above petitions seeking review of the judgment and to "pass such other or further order(s) as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case".

(2.) At the outset, we may examine the scope of review of a judgment in a criminal case already pronounced by this Court. Article 137 of the Constitution of India gives the power to the Supreme Court to review its judgment but such special power is exercisable in accordance with, and subject to, the rules of this Court made under Art. 145 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) This Court in a series of decisions has examined the scope of review in criminal cases after the judgment pronounced or order made. Though we are not citing all those decisions, we may refer to a few.