9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 714X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on involved herein, we need not dilate on the factual matrix of the matter in great details. Suffice it say that the appellant herein was proceeded against in a case involving kidnapping of two boys. Sudhir Kumar and Sushil Kumar, aged about 10 to 12 years. They were sons of Ramakant Katiyar (P.W.6). They had gone to attend school at about 7.30 in the morning of 29th December, 1994. They were to return at about 1.30 p.m., but, when they did not return till 5.30 p.m., a search for them was made. After the informant came back home, he was informed by his wife that one of the classmate of the boys, namely, Gulabchandra Gour (P.W.7), had delivered his school bag informing that Satyendra (P.W.10) had asked him to do the same. P.W.6 went to the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for short). The learned Trial Judge opined that there was no material on record to show that the victims were killed by the appellant. It was further not found that they were kidnapped for obtaining ransom or for murdering them. However, two letters were found to have been written by the appellant. He, therefore, convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364 and 365 read with Sections 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and passed the following sentences: U/S. 364 IPC R.I. for 10 years U/S. 364 IPC R.I. for 10 years U/S. 365 IPC R.I. for 4 years U/S. 365 IPC R.I. for 4 years U/S. 120 B IPC R.I. for 5 years U/S. 120 B IPC R.I. for 5 years U/S. 201 IPC R.I. for 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rous imprisonment would be 20 years. 4. Mr. T.N. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court committed an error in sentencing the appellant to undergo 20 years' Rigorous Imprisonment in view of Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was pointed out that the appellant had already been in jail for a period of more than 12 years. The appellant, as noticed hereinbefore, was charged both under Section 364A IPC as also 102B IPC. He was not found guilty of any of the said charges. He was charged only under Sections 364 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. The maximum sentence which could be imposed under Section 364 was 10 years and under Section 365 was 7 ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court, in our opinion, thus, committed a serious illegality in passing the impugned judgment. 6. In Kamalanantha and Ors. v. State of T.N. AIR 2005 SC 2132, this Court, although, held that even the life imprisonment can be subject to consecutive sentence, but it was observed: Regarding the sentence, the trial court resorted to Section 31 CrPC and ordered the sentence to run consecutively, subject to proviso (a) of the said section. Although, the power of the Court to impose consecutive sentence under Section 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also noticed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan AIR 2005 SC 688, but, therein the question of construing proviso appended thereto did not and could not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
