2014 (11) TMI 1259 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction of Appellant/1st accused Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code - award of punishment/sentences - whether the sentence can be made to run concurrently, instead of running consecutively? - HELD THAT - Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the quantum of punishment that the court has jurisdiction to pass where the accused is convicted for two or more offences at one trial. Section 31(1) Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins a further direction by the court to specify the order in which one particular sentence shall commence after the expiration of the other. Difficulties arise when the Courts impose sentence of imprisonment for life and also sentences of imprisonment for fixed term. In such cases, if the Court does not direct that the sentences shall run concurrently, then the sentences will run consecutively by operation of Section 31(1) Code of Criminal Procedure There is no question of the convict first undergoing the sentence of imprisonment for life and thereafter undergoing the rest of the sentences of imprisonment for fixed term and any such direction would be unworkable. Since sentence of imprisonment for life means jail till the end of normal life of the convict, the sentence of imprisonment of fixed term has to necessarily run concurrently with life imprisonment. In such case, it will be in order if the Sessions Judges exercise their discretion in issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences. Likewise if two life sentences are imposed on the convict, necessarily, Court has to direct those sentences to run concurrently. When the prosecution is based on single transaction where it constitutes two or more offences, sentences are to run concurrently. Imposing separate sentences, when the acts constituting different offences form part of the single transaction is not justified. So far as the benefit available to the accused to have the sentences to run concurrently of several offences based on single transaction, in VK. BANSAL VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS 2013 (8) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT , in which one of us (Justice T.S. Thakur) was a member, this Court held has held that the legal position favours exercise of discretion to the benefit of the prisoner in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction no matter different complaints in relation thereto may have been filed as is the position in cases involving dishonour of cheques issued by the borrower towards repayment of a loan to the creditor. Thus, Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure leaves full discretion with the Court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently, having regard to the nature of offences and attendant aggravating or mitigating circumstances - there are no reason to hold that normal rule is to order the sentence to be consecutive and exception is to make the sentences concurrent. of course, if the Court does not order the sentence to be concurrent, one sentence may run after the other, in such order as the Court may direct. The trial court directed the sentences imposed on the Appellant/accused Under Sections 498A and 306 Indian Penal Code to run consecutively, which was affirmed by the High Court. When the trial court declines to exercise its discretion Under Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure in issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences, normally the appellate court will not interfere, unless the refusal to exercise such discretion is shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. When the trial court as well as the appellate court declined to exercise their discretion, normally we would have refrained from interfering with such direction of the courts for consecutive running of sentences. But in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentences imposed on the Appellant could be ordered to be run concurrently. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether the sentences should run concurrently or consecutively.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC:
The case involves the appellant, who was convicted by the High Court of Kerala under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC. The prosecution's case was that the appellant married Lillikutty in 1988, and during their marital life, she was subjected to ill-treatment and torture by the appellant and his family, leading to her committing suicide on 23.2.1996. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 498A IPC and seven years under Section 306 IPC, with the sentences to run consecutively. The High Court upheld this conviction and sentence.

2. Whether the Sentences Should Run Concurrently or Consecutively:
The Supreme Court issued notice limited to the question of whether the sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively. The appellant's counsel argued that Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) vests discretion in the court to direct that sentences for multiple offences can run concurrently. The counsel cited previous judgments, including Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Asstt. Collector of Customs and Manoj alias Panu v. State of Haryana, to support this argument.

Section 31 CrPC states that when a person is convicted of two or more offences at one trial, the court may direct the sentences to run concurrently or consecutively. The Supreme Court noted that Section 31 provides discretion to the court to order concurrent sentences, especially when the offences arise from a single transaction. The court emphasized that the discretion should be exercised judicially, considering the totality of facts and circumstances.

The court highlighted that in cases involving life imprisonment and fixed-term sentences, the sentences should run concurrently, as life imprisonment means imprisonment till the end of the convict's life. The court also referred to previous judgments where concurrent sentences were favored in cases arising from a single transaction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that Section 31 CrPC leaves full discretion with the court to order sentences to run concurrently or consecutively, based on the nature of offences and circumstances. The court found no conflict between the judgments in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain and Section 31 CrPC.

In the present case, considering the appellant's employment abroad and limited visits to India, the court found it appropriate to order the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the sentences to run concurrently.