2016 (10) TMI 1074 - SC - Indian Laws

Clubing of offence - term of sentence - Appellant was involved in committing thefts he was charged of having committed offences on different occasions - Held that - We do not find anything incorrect in the assessment made by the Courts below and in our view the orders of conviction recorded against the Appellant in the present cases are quite correct. We also do not find anything wrong in the quantum of sentence imposed in respect of the respective crimes. However going by the sentence calculation, the sentence imposed in respect of the first crime started with effect from 20.11.2003 and the last sentence would be over by 19.08.2022, which would effectively mean that the total length of sentences in aggregate would be around 19 years. We are not concerned with first eight matters and sentences imposed in respect of those crimes. The sentence in respect of 8th crime is presently running against the Appellant and would be over on 30.08.2017. The maximum sentence in respect of the present crimes is two years rigorous imprisonment. As per the record, these crimes were committed on the same day. Having considered the matters, we deem it appropriate to direct that the sentences imposed in each of the cases, i.e. (i) CC No. 158 of 2004, (ii) CC No. 1039 of 2003, (iii) CC No. 390 of 2004 and (iv) CC No. 1168 of 2006 namely those at Sl. Nos. 9 to 12 respectively as indicated in the sentence chart in the communication dated 27.05.2016 shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Crime No. 8 which is currently operative. We grant this benefit in respect of substantive sentences to the Appellant but maintain the sentences of fine and the default sentences. If the fine as imposed is not deposited, the default sentence or sentences will run consecutively and not concurrently.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of convictions and sentences imposed.
2. Application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding concurrent running of sentences.
3. Calculation of aggregate sentence duration.
4. Specific direction on concurrent running of sentences for the crimes in question.

Analysis:

1. Validity of Convictions and Sentences Imposed:
The appellant was involved in multiple theft cases and was tried separately in four different cases (CC No. 158 of 2004, CC No. 1039 of 2003, CC No. 390 of 2004, and CC No. 1168 of 2006) for offences under Sections 379, 414 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was convicted and sentenced in each case, and the convictions and sentences were upheld by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, and subsequently by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petitions. The Supreme Court found no error in the assessment made by the lower courts regarding the appellant's convictions and the quantum of sentences imposed.

2. Application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, states that if a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction, the subsequent term of imprisonment shall normally commence at the expiration of the previous imprisonment unless the court directs otherwise. The Supreme Court noted that it is within the court's discretion to direct that subsequent sentences run concurrently with previous sentences. This discretion must be exercised judicially, considering the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case.

3. Calculation of Aggregate Sentence Duration:
The communication from the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services detailed the appellant's sentence calculations, indicating that the sentences for the crimes in question (Sl. Nos. 9 to 12) would begin on 30.08.2017 and end on 02.09.2022. The total length of sentences in aggregate, including previous convictions, would be around 19 years. The Supreme Court noted that the sentence for the first crime started on 20.11.2003, and the last sentence would be over by 19.08.2022.

4. Specific Direction on Concurrent Running of Sentences:
The Supreme Court considered the fact that the crimes in question were committed on the same day and the maximum sentence for each crime was two years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court deemed it appropriate to direct that the sentences imposed in each of the cases (CC No. 158 of 2004, CC No. 1039 of 2003, CC No. 390 of 2004, and CC No. 1168 of 2006) should run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Crime No. 8, which was currently operative. However, the Court maintained the sentences of fine and the default sentences, specifying that if the fine was not deposited, the default sentences would run consecutively, not concurrently.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, modifying the orders of sentences to run concurrently for the specified cases while maintaining the fines and default sentences. The Court exercised its discretion under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to ensure that the appellant's sentences were justly aggregated.