Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.31 – Sentences in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial – Compliance of s. 31, by the Magistrate – Held: Magistrate should specify in the order by taking recourse to s. 31 as to whether the punishment of sentence of imprisonment so awarded for each offence would run concurrently or consecutively – On facts, Magistrate while passing the order of sentence erred in not mentioning as to whether the two punishments awarded to convict u/s. 279 and 304-A IPC would run concurrently or consecutively – In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, both the sentences awarded by Magistrate to run ‘concurrently’.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It was necessary for the Magistrate to have ensured compliance of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when she convicted and sentenced the appellant for two offences in a trial and inflicted two punishments for each offence, namely, Section 279 and Section 304-A IPC. In such a situation, it was necessary for the Magistrate to have specified in the order by taking recourse to Section 31 of the Code as to whether the punishment of sentence of imprisonment so awarded by her for each offence would run concurrently or consecutively. Indeed, it being a legal requirement contemplated under Section 31 of the Code, the Magistrate erred in not ensuring its compliance while inflicting the two punishments to the appellant. [Paras 16-18] [370-F-H; 371-A]
1.2 If the Magistrate failed in her duty, the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court should have noticed this error committed by the Magistrate and accordingly should have corrected it. It was, however, not done and hence interference is called for to that extent. [Para 19] [371-B]
1.3 The appellant was convicted and accordingly punished with a sentence to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 304-A and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine amount of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 279 IPC. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the case, both the sentences awarded by the Magistrate to the appellant would run “concurrently”. [Paras 20, 21] [371-C-D]
1.4 So far as the merits of the case is concerned, when three Courts have, on appreciation of evidence, found that the prosecution was able to make out a case against the appellant, there is no good ground to interfere in such finding. The finding of conviction and sentence under both the Sections, awarded by the Magistrate is upheld. [Paras 22, 23] [371-E, F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.