9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1035 - SC - Indian LawsQuantum of sentence - conviction of offences Under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - already undergone 13 years and 2 months of imprisonment - Section 31(1) Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - It is beyond a shadow of doubt that Section 31(1) Code of Criminal Procedure vests complete discretion with the Court to order the sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently having regard to the nature of offences and the surrounding factors. Even though it cannot be said that consecutive running is the normal Rule but, it is also not laid down that multiple sentences must run concurrently. There cannot be any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the Court; but this discretion has to be judiciously exercised with reference to the nature of the offence/s committed and the facts and circumstances of the case. However, if the sentences (other than life imprisonment) are not provided to run concurrently, one would run after the other, in such order as the Court may direct. For what has been provided in Section 31(1) Code of Criminal Procedure read with the expositions of this Court, it follows that the Court of first instance is under legal obligation while awarding multiple sentences to specify in clear terms as to whether they would run concurrently or consecutively - if the Court of first instance does not specify the concurrent running of sentences, the inference, primarily, is that the Court intended such sentences to run consecutively, though, as aforesaid, the Court of first instance ought not to leave this matter for deduction at the later stage. Moreover, if the Court of first instance is intending consecutive running of sentences, there is yet another obligation on it to state the order (i.e., the sequence) in which they are to be executed. The disturbing part of the matter herein is that not only the Trial Court omitted to state the requisite specifications, even the High Court missed out such flaws in the order of the Trial Court. Even when Sub-section (2) of Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure is not directly applicable, some of the relevant features of the present case are that the offences in question were committed in the year 2008 i.e., before amendment of Indian Penal Code by the Amending Act 13 of 2013; the Appellants have continuously served about 13 years and 2 months of imprisonment; and nothing adverse in regard to their conduct while serving the sentences has been placed on record. In the given set of circumstances, we have pondered over the question as to what ought to be the order for a just balance on the requirements of punishment on one hand and reasonable release period for the Appellants on the other, while keeping in view the overall scheme of awarding of punishments and execution thereof, including the ancillary aspects referable to Sections 433 and 433A Code of Criminal Procedure as also Section 55 Indian Penal Code whereunder, serving of a term of 14 years even in the sentence of imprisonment for life is the bottom line (subject to the exercise of powers of commuting by the appropriate Government in accordance with other applicable principles). In exercise of powers Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we provide for modification of the punishment awarded to the Appellants in the manner that the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by them in relation to offences in question shall be 14 years and not beyond. It goes without saying that this order of modification is passed only in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The requirement of payment of fine and the default stipulations, as applicable to the Appellant No. 1 in terms of the order of the High Court and to the Appellant No. 2 in terms of the order of the Trial Court, shall remain intact. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that as per his instructions, the Appellant No. 1 has deposited the fine amount. The submission is taken on record. However, it is made clear that in default in payment of fine, the defaulter-Appellant shall undergo respective default sentences consecutively and in the order they have been imposed, for offences Under Sections 363, 366, and 376(1) Indian Penal Code. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sentences awarded to the appellants should run concurrently or consecutively. 2. Whether the omission by the Trial Court and High Court to specify the running order of sentences affects the appellants' interests. 3. Applicability of the 'single transaction' principle to the concurrent or consecutive running of sentences. 4. Consideration of the proportionality of the total term of imprisonment in relation to the offences committed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences: The Supreme Court examined whether the sentences awarded to the appellants should run concurrently or consecutively. The appellants were convicted under Sections 363, 366, and 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for terms of 5 years, 7 years, and 10 years respectively. The Trial Court did not specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively. Under Section 31 of the CrPC, it is obligatory for the court to specify this. The Court noted that if not specified, sentences typically run consecutively, as per the precedent set in *Muthuramalingam v. State* and *O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala*. 2. Omission by Trial Court and High Court: The omission by the Trial Court and High Court to specify the concurrent or consecutive running of sentences was scrutinized. The Supreme Court emphasized that such omissions cause unnecessary prejudice to the parties involved. The Court stated that the discretion to order sentences to run concurrently must be exercised judiciously, considering the nature of the offences and the facts of the case. The High Court's failure to address this issue led to the appellants serving sentences consecutively by default, which resulted in a total term of 22 years. 3. Single Transaction Principle: The appellants' counsel argued for the application of the 'single transaction' principle, suggesting that the offences were part of a single transaction and thus, the sentences should run concurrently. However, the Court clarified that the principle under Section 220 of the CrPC pertains to the trial of multiple offences in a single trial and does not necessarily imply concurrent sentences. The Court referenced *Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar* and *Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs*, noting that the facts of each case determine the applicability of concurrent sentences. 4. Proportionality of Imprisonment: The Supreme Court considered the proportionality of the total term of imprisonment. The appellants had already served over 13 years. The Court acknowledged the gravity of the offences but also noted the need for a balanced approach in sentencing. Referencing the overall scheme of punishment and the provisions under Sections 433 and 433A of the CrPC, the Court concluded that a maximum period of 14 years of imprisonment would be just and reasonable in this case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court modified the punishment, stating that the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by the appellants shall be 14 years. The requirement of payment of fines and the default stipulations remained intact. The Court reiterated the importance of the Trial Court specifying whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively to avoid unnecessary prejudice. The appeal was partly allowed, with the modification of the imprisonment term, emphasizing the need for clear judicial directions in sentencing.
|
