9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peculiarities of its own, as noticed infra. 3. As regards relevant background aspects, suffice it to notice that on 03.02.2008, Case Crime No. 44 of 2008 for offences Under Sections 363 and 366 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') came to be registered at Police Station, T.P. Nagar, Meerut on the basis of a written complaint that the complainant's 13-year-old daughter, who had gone to school on 15.01.2008, had not returned; and after a lot of efforts, the complainant came to know that the Accused-Appellant No. 2 Faimuddin @ Feru @ Sonu had enticed his daughter. In the course of investigation, the victim girl was recovered and, ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants for offences Under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code. They were tried in Sessions Trial No. 575 of 2008 wherein, the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Meerut, in its judgment and order dated 12.09.2008, convicted them of offences Under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) Indian Penal Code. 4. After having recorded conviction as aforesaid, the Trial Court sentenced the Appellants to several punishments in the following manner: rigorous imprisonment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the High Court provided for modification of default stipulations in converse order i.e., for offences Under Sections 376(1), 366 and 363 Indian Penal Code respectively. 6. For the reason that the decisions aforesaid were silent on the point of concurrent or consecutive running of sentences, the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut, while issuing certificates of confinement on 14.03.2018, stated that the Accused-Appellants had undergone 10 years and 1 month of imprisonment but, there being no mention in the sentencing order about concurrent running of sentences, they were serving 22 years of imprisonment. Faced with such a predicament, the Accused-Appellants have approached this Court. 7. While confining his arguments to the question of sentence, learned Counsel for the Appellants Mr. Amit Pai has industriously put forward the submissions with reference to Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') and a good number of the decisions of this Court. 7.1. The learned Counsel has contended, while relying on the decisions in Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation: (2015) 4 SCC 302 and Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab: (2019) 5 SCC 154, that it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this Court permitted him to file SLP by the order dated 13.04.2018; and, therefore, benefit of reduction of default sentence, as ordered by the High Court, deserves to be extended to the Appellant No. 2 too. 7.5. The learned Counsel Mr. Pai, even while frankly pointing out the observations of the Constitution Bench in Muthuramalingam and Ors. v. State (2016) 8 SCC 313 (paragraph 28), to the effect that Sub-section (2) of Section 31 has no application to a case tried by the Court of Sessions nor Sub-section (2) forbids a direction for consecutive running of sentences awardable by the Court of Sessions, has made a fervent appeal that the Appellants have already undergone over 13 years of imprisonment; and if ordained to serve for a total term of 22 years by consecutive running of sentences, it would be highly disproportionate to the actual punishment they need to suffer in this case. 8. On the other hand, the learned AAG Mr. Vinod Diwakar has, firmly as also fairly, put forward the views on behalf of the Respondent-State in opposition to the contentions aforesaid. 8.1. The learned AAG Mr. Diwakar would submit that Section 31 Code of Criminal Procedure vests a discretion in the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re offences. It is difficult to lay down any straitjacket approach in the matter of exercise of such discretion by the courts. By and large, trial courts and appellate courts have invoked and exercised their discretion to issue directions for concurrent running of sentences, favouring the benefit to be given to the Accused. Whether a direction for concurrent running of sentences ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed and the facts and circumstances of the case. The discretion has to be exercised along the judicial lines and not mechanically. 21. Accordingly, we answer the reference by holding that 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. We do not find any 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 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Indian Penal Code or/and of an offence punishable under any other Special Act arising out of one trial or more. It is for the reason that award of former enure to the benefit of the Accused whereas award of latter is detrimental to the Accused's interest. It is therefore, legally obligatory upon the court of first instance while awarding sentence to specify in clear terms in the order of conviction as to whether sentences awarded to the Accused would run "concurrently" or they would run "consecutively". 12. As noticed, 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 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Uttar Pradesh. Of course, in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain (supra), this Court indicated that if a transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments, generally it is wrong to have consecutive sentences but this Court hastened to observe that such a Rule shall have no application if the transaction relating to the offences is not the same or the facts concerning the two offences are quite different. Significantly, in that case, consecutive running of sentences awarded to Accused-Appellant, in two different cases pertaining to the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962, was upheld by this Court with the finding that the two offences for which the Appellant was prosecuted were 'quite distinct and different'. The only modification ordered by this Court was concerning the term of imprisonment for the latter conviction while disapproving its enhancement from 4 years to 7 years by the High Court after noticing that he was already sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 7 years in the first offence. The trial and conviction in the case of Manoj alias Panju (supra) had been for offence Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code as also Under Sections 25 and 27 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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). After anxious consideration of all the relevant factors, we are of the view that the requirements of complete justice to the cause bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
