9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sentences awarded in two different FIRs should run concurrently or consecutively. 2. Interpretation and application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 3. Judicial discretion in converting consecutive sentences into concurrent sentences. 4. The role of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in directing sentences to run concurrently. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the sentences awarded in two different FIRs should run concurrently or consecutively. The applicant-Appellant was convicted under two different FIRs and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for various terms. He filed a petition to direct that the sentences awarded in these two different FIRs run concurrently. The Full Bench was constituted to address this issue due to the lack of clear principles governing the exercise of judicial discretion in such cases. Issue 2: Interpretation and application of Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 427 CrPC regulates the mode of execution of sentences when an offender is already undergoing imprisonment for another offense. Sub-section (1) provides that subsequent imprisonment shall commence after the expiration of the previous sentence unless the court directs otherwise. Sub-section (2) mandates that if a person already undergoing life imprisonment is sentenced to another term or life imprisonment, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous one. The general principle is that sentences should take effect immediately upon conviction unless directed otherwise by the court. Issue 3: Judicial discretion in converting consecutive sentences into concurrent sentences. The Full Bench noted that while the court has discretion to convert consecutive sentences into concurrent ones, the principles, method, and manner of exercising such discretion were not clearly laid out. The court referred to various judgments, including the Supreme Court's observations in State of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali, which highlighted that Section 427 aims to provide amelioration to prisoners. The discretion should be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case, considering factors such as the nature and character of the offenses, the offender's criminal history, age, and sex. Issue 4: The role of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC in directing sentences to run concurrently. The Full Bench discussed whether the High Court could invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to direct sentences to run concurrently if the trial or appellate court did not provide such a direction. It was noted that the consensus of judicial opinion suggests that inherent powers can be invoked even if the sentencing court did not exercise its discretion under Section 427(1) CrPC. However, the Supreme Court's decision in M.R. Kudva v. State of Andhra Pradesh clarified that such an application under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable if the provisions of Section 427 CrPC were not invoked during the original trial or appeal. Conclusion: The Full Bench concluded that the discretion to make sentences run consecutively or concurrently should be governed by the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the offenses, the offender's criminal history, and other relevant factors. The normal rule under Section 427 CrPC is consecutive sentences unless the court directs otherwise. The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked in isolation to direct sentences to run concurrently if the trial or appellate court did not exercise such discretion. The case was remitted back to the Division Bench to pass appropriate directions on the application filed by the applicant-Appellant.
|
