ORDER MR. P.N. PRAKASH, J. 1. This is a pathetic case where a boon given by one hand was taken away by another hand of the same body. 2. The petitioner, Alamelu is the sister of the detenu Chinnavan @ Saravanan, who was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with three other accused in S.C. No. 51/2002 on 19.06.2003 by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Erode. 3. The detenu herein Chinnavan @ Saravanan was arrayed as A1 along with three others and were tried and convicted and sentenced for the following charges in S.C. No. 51/2002 on 19.06.2003 by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Erode. “A1 - Sections 366 r/w 34 IPC, 323, 324,506(ii) IPC 576(2)(g) r/w Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A2 - Sections 366 r/w 34, 323 and 376(2)(g) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes A3 - Sections 366 r/w 34, 323 and 376(2)(g) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act r/w 109 IPC A4 – Sections 366 r/w 34, 323 and 376 (2)(g) IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act r/w 109 IPC. A1 to A4 are acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For offence under Section 366 read with 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC, each one of the accused stand sentenced to undergo seven year rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs .1,000/- carrying a default sentence and fine of Rs .500/- carrying a default sentence respectively. A1 is found guilty for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and stands sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs .500/- carrying a default sentence; for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs .1,000/- carrying a default sentence. For the same offence read with Section 109 IPC, A3 and A4 are also sentenced to undergo a similar punishment. From the fine amount of A1, a sum of Rs .2,000/- and from the fine of A2 to A4, a sum of Rs .1,000/- each stand directed to be paid as compensation to P.W.1. For the same offence read with Section 109 IPC, A3 and A4 are also sentenced to undergo a similar punishment. From the fine amount of A1, a sum of Rs .2,000/- and from the fine of A2 to A4, a sum of Rs .1,000/- each stand directed to be paid as compensation to P.W.1. The sentences stand directed to run concurrently.” From the above it is apparent that the trial Court had imposed life imprisonment on all the accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC read with Section Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”]. In the sense, the trial Court held that the charge of rape has been established and since the victim was a Dalit and the accused were non Dalits, the Court invoked Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 4. A2 and A3 in the case filed Crl. A. No. 809/2004 and 100/2005 respectively before this Court, which was heard by a Division Bench of this Court. A1 and A4 did not file any appeal. The Division Bench heard the appeals of A2 and A3 and held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and acquitted not only the accused who filed appeal, but also A1 and A4. The relevant portion of this Court’s judgment dated 23.08.2006 in Crl. A. Nos. 809/2004 and 100/2005 are extracted hereunder: “Learned trial Judge himself had acquitted A1 to A4 of the offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Schedule Cates and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For the conviction of A2 under Section 506(ii) IPC there is legal evidence, namely evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4. Admittedly A1 and A4 have not appealed. The appellate Court can give the benefit of its judgment to the non-appealing accused is also a recognised one as per the judgment of the Supreme Court (see Gurucharan Kumar and Another v. State of Rajasthan JT 2003 (1) SC 69]. Accordingly, we are inclined to give the benefit of our decision to A1 and A4 also. The appeals stand disposed on the following lines: “A1 and A2 are acquitted of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A1 is also acquitted of the offence under Section 324 IPC. Accordingly, we are inclined to give the benefit of our decision to A1 and A4 also. The appeals stand disposed on the following lines: “A1 and A2 are acquitted of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A1 is also acquitted of the offence under Section 324 IPC. The conviction of A1 and A2 for offences under Sections 366 read with Section 34 IPC; 323 and 376(2)(g) IPC is confirmed. The conviction of A4 for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is confirmed. The conviction of A3 and A4 for offences under Sections 366 read with 34, 323 and 376(2)(g) read with Section 109 IPC is confirmed. For offences under Sections 376(2)(g) IPC and 376(2)(g) read with 109 IPC A2 and A3 stand sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Rest of the sentence imposed on them for the other offences are maintained.” 5. A1 filed an appeal in the year 2006 with delay and the delay having been condoned his appeal Crl. A. No. 1030/2006 was heard by another Division Bench on 19.02.2007. During the course of the arguments in Crl. A. No. 1030/2006, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had vehemently contended that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court had already disposed of the appeals of A2 and A3 in Crl. A. Nos. 809/2004 and 100/2005 and it gave the benefit of that judgments to these appellants also. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, this appellant/A1 was not represented by the counsel on record and therefore, this Court thought it fit to appoint a lawyer of good standing as Amicus Curie. The Amicus Curie contended before the Court that the earlier judgment will not have a binding effect on this appellant because his right to appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be abridged or taken away. This Court upheld the contentions of the Amicus Curie and rejected the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and heard the appeal on merits. This Court appreciated the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Division Bench in Crl. A. Nos.809/2004 and 100/2005 and held that the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not proved. This Court upheld the contentions of the Amicus Curie and rejected the contentions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and heard the appeal on merits. This Court appreciated the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Division Bench in Crl. A. Nos.809/2004 and 100/2005 and held that the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was not proved. We are extracting the relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in Crl. A. No. 1030/2006: “51. In so far as the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned, there is absolutely, no evidence. As the prosecution has not made out any case in respect of the said charge against the appellant, we are in entire agreement with the finding of the earlier Bench in this regard. Further, it is clear from the oral and documentary evidence, the appellant has not committed such offence for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. P.Ws.2 and 3 also did not give such evidence to attract the said offence. Except the reference to her fairness by A1 to A4, we do find nothing to attract the said charge. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any legal evidence, the conviction and sentence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside. 52. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed partly. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 366 r/w 34, 376(2)(g), 324 and 506(ii) IPC are hereby confirmed, in respect of the offences 376(2)(g), 324, 506(ii) are confirmed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 323 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are set aside.” Unfortunately, there is no reference to the reduction of life imprisonment to imprisonment for ten years consequent to the acquittal of the detenu for the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Nobody had bothered about this because the detenu had resigned himself to his fate. It is evident from the fact that he did not even choose to file an appeal along with A2 and A3 at the first instance and in the second instance his Advocate abandoned him, which necessitated this Court to appoint an Amicus Curie to do the case. It is evident from the fact that he did not even choose to file an appeal along with A2 and A3 at the first instance and in the second instance his Advocate abandoned him, which necessitated this Court to appoint an Amicus Curie to do the case. This anomaly came to light only when A2 and A3 were released from the prison on completion of ten years period, whereas, A1 and A4 are continuing to remain in prison. This is indeed a gross injustice which requires to be rectified in exercise of our constitutional power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Actus curiae neminem gravabit - The act of the court harms no one. There is no reference in the judgment of this Court in Crl.A. No. 1030/2006 to the effect that this Court is consciously imposing life sentence on the appellant disagreeing with the judgment of the earlier Bench in Crl. A. Nos. 809/2004 and 100/2005. On the contrary, heavy reliance has been placed by this Court in Crl. A. No. 1030/2006 on the earlier judgment, viz., Crl. A. Nos.809/2004 and 100/2005 and has also acquitted the accused on the charge of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. From the totality of facts, it appears to us that an error has crept in during preparation of the judgment which has gone unnoticed by everyone. We are not reviewing, altering or revising the judgment in Crl. A. No. 1030/2006, but we are simply reading into it the benefit of sentence which is already granted to the detenu herein in Crl. A. Nos. 809/2004 and 100/2005. 6. This issue can be approached from another angle also. Admittedly, this Court in Crl. A. Nos. 809/2004 and 100/2005 had reduced the life imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner to ten years Rigorous Imprisonment by acquitting all the accused for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, though the detenu herein [A1] had not filed an appeal at that point of time. When subsequently the detenu filed Crl. A. No. 1030/2006 and wanted his case to be heard afresh, this Court rightly rejected the argument of the State that the appeal is not maintainable and entertained the same. When subsequently the detenu filed Crl. A. No. 1030/2006 and wanted his case to be heard afresh, this Court rightly rejected the argument of the State that the appeal is not maintainable and entertained the same. After having entertained the same, this Court cannot give a greater penalty nor can it take away a benefit that was given to the detenu by the earlier judgment, for that would be barred by Section 362 Cr.P.C. In other words, this Court, while dealing with Crl. A. No. 1030/2006, could have either totally acquitted the accused or reduced the sentence to less than ten years, but it cannot deny the benefits accrued to the accused on account of the earlier judgment in Crl. A. Nos. 809/2004 and 100/2005 as that would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 362 Cr.P.C. 7. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the facts in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbans Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1982) 2 SCC 102. One Kashmira Singh, Jeeta Singh and Harbans Singh (H) were convicted and sentenced to death by the trial Court and the High Court. The separate appeals to the Supreme Court by the three accused met three different fates at the hands of different Benches of the Supreme Court before whom the matters came up for disposal. The Special Leave Petition of Jeeta Singh was dismissed on 15.04.1976 and he was hanged on October 6, 1981. The Special Leave Petition of Kashmira Singh was admitted and the appeal was allowed on April 10, 1977 and his death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life. However, the Special Leave Petition of Harbans Singh was dismissed on October 16, 1978 by another Bench and the Review Application was also dismissed on May 9, 1980. When Harbans Singh was about to be hanged, he once again approached the Supreme Court by writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and his execution was stayed. The Supreme Court observed the anomaly and in the words of Justice A.N. Sen: “18. When Harbans Singh was about to be hanged, he once again approached the Supreme Court by writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and his execution was stayed. The Supreme Court observed the anomaly and in the words of Justice A.N. Sen: “18. To my mind, it will be a sheer travesty of justice and the course of justice will be perverted, if for the very same offence, the petitioner has to swing and pay the extreme penalty of death whereas the death sentence imposed on his co-accused for the very same offence is commuted to one of life imprisonment and the life of the co-accused is spared..................... 19. In the circumstances hereinabove stated, I am of the opinion that it will be manifestly unjust to allow the death sentence imposed on the petitioner to be executed. The question that, however, troubles me is whether this Court retains any power and jurisdiction to entertain and pass any appropriate on the question of sentence imposed on the petitioner in view of the fact that not only his special leave petition and review petition have been dismissed by this Court but also the further fact that his petition for clemency has also been rejected by the President. 20. Very wide powers have been conferred on this Court for due and proper administration of justice. Apart from the jurisdiction and powers conferred on this Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution, I am of the opinion that this Court retains and must retain, an inherent power and jurisdiction for dealing with any extraordinary situation in the larger interests of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done. This power must necessarily be sparingly used only in exceptional circumstances for furthering the ends of justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where this Court should entertain the present petition of Harbans Singh and this Court should interfere.” 8. Under Article 226 we also have wide powers to set right such anomalies that result in gross and manifest injustice to a prisoner. When the prisoner has come to this Court complaining that his right under Article 21 guaranteed by the Constitution of India has been violated by the subsequent judgment in Crl. Under Article 226 we also have wide powers to set right such anomalies that result in gross and manifest injustice to a prisoner. When the prisoner has come to this Court complaining that his right under Article 21 guaranteed by the Constitution of India has been violated by the subsequent judgment in Crl. A. No. 1030/2006, we cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to it and refuse to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on us by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The life imprisonment imposed on the detenu in Crl.A. No. 1030/2006 is non-est in law. Therefore we hold that the sentence of ten years imprisonment imposed by this Court on 23.08.2006 in Crl.A.Nos.809/2004 and 100/2005 to A2 and A3 will hold good for the detenu in this case Chinnavan @ Saravanan (A1) and A4 (whose name we are not able to deduce from the case records) involved in Erode North Police Station Cr. No. 559/2001, convicted and sentenced in S.C. No. 51/2002 on 19.06.2003 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Erode. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.