Sentence/Sentencing: Sentences to run concurrently or consecutively – Duty of Court of first instance to specify – Held: It is legally obligatory upon the court of first instance while awarding multiple punishments of imprisonment to specify in clear terms as to whether the sentences 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, 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.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.31(1) – Held: s.31(1) 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 – 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.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.220 – The ‘single transaction’ principle is essentially referable to s.220 which provides that if more offences than one are committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, then the accused may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence – In a given case, after such trial for multiple offences, if the accused is convicted and awarded different punishments, concurrent running thereof may be provided depending on the facts and the relevant surrounding factors.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is beyond a shadow of doubt that Section 31(1) CrPC 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. [Para 10][639-B-D]
1.2 For what has been provided in Section 31(1) CrPC 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. [Para 11][639-D-E]
Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015)
4 SCC 302 : [2015] 12 SCR 424 – relied on.
1.3 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. [Para 12][639-H; 640-A-B]
2. The ‘single transaction’ principle is essentially referable to Section 220 CrPC, which provides that if more offences than one are committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, then the accused may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. In a given case, after such trial for multiple offences, if the accused is convicted and awarded different punishments, concurrent running thereof may be provided depending on the facts and the relevant surrounding factors. The principle related with ‘single transaction’ cannot be imported for dealing with the question at hand. [Para 14][640-E-F]
Manoj alias Panju v. State of Haryana (2014) 2 SCC
153 : [1996] 1 SCR 532; Nagaraja Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 SCC 302 : [2015] 12 SCR 424; Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab (2019) 5 SCC 154 : [2019] 3 SCR 367 – distinguished.
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors.(1996) 2 SCC 384; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh (2015)
7 SCC 773 : [2015] 6 SCR 960 – held inapplicable.
3. The offences in question were committed in the year 2008 i.e, before amendment of IPC 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. The requirements of complete justice to the cause could adequately be met by providing that the maximum period of imprisonment to be served by the appellants shall be 14 years and not beyond. [Para 17][642-D-E, F-G]
Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State (2016) 8 SCC 313 : [2016] 5 SCR 30 – followed.
O.M. Cherian alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015) 2 SCC 501 : [2014] 11 SCR 140 – relied on.
Mohan Baitha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2001) 4 SCC 350; Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 747 – distinguished.
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.