Concurrent sentences

Section 397, Cr.P.C. contemplates that sentences awarded to a person in a subsequent trial would commence at the expiration of imprisonment for which he had been previously sentenced, however, discretion has been left with the court to direct concurrent running of sentence awarded in a subsequent trial

Command of law for consecutive sentences is general rule while discretion for concurrent sentences is discretionary power of the court.

Petitioner was awarded sentences of imprisonment for life and imprisonment for four years in two different trials/appeals however, no order for concurrent running of sentences was made

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced simultaneously and even his appeals were decided at the same time, however, while converting his death sentence into imprisonment for life appropriate orders for concurrent running of sentences escaped notice of the court

High Court directed that sentence of imprisonment for life and sentence of imprisonment for four years shall run concurrently

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Appropriate order within the meaning of S.397, Cr.P.C. ought to be made at the time of deciding the case or appeal but if, for any reason or due to some inadvertent omission, direction could not be issued at that time there is no embargo that the same cannot be passed afterwards

Court can exercise discretionary power at any time to direct that sentences in two different trials would run concurrently.

Accused was variously convicted by Trial Court for all offences maximum sentence was death on two counts on the charge under S. 302(b), P.P.C.

High Court on appeal, converted sentences of death passed against accused on both counts of charge under S. 302(b), P.P.C. to imprisonment for life on two counts, whereas remaining convictions and sentences were maintained

High Court did not declare the sentences to run concurrently

Validity

Ordinarily more than one sentences of imprisonment for life passed against accused were to be ordered to run concurrently to each other

Supreme Court directed that all sentences of imprisonment passed against accused would run concurrently to each other

Supreme Court also directed to extend benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. to accused

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Accused were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to various imprisonments extending to 14 years, which were ordered to run consecutively

Validity

FIR was got lodged within a short span of thirty minutes and complainant not only named all accused persons but had also mentioned each and every minor as well as material fact of incident therein, which excluded possibility of deliberation or consultation regarding false implication of accused

Prosecution successfully proved its case against accused persons who were caught red-handed and huge quantity of material to be used for preparation of explosives was recovered from them

No element of doubt was available in statements of prosecution witnesses which inspired confidence and nothing was found on record which could establish that witnesses deposed against accused persons and implicated them due to previous enmity, grudge or malice or to fulfil some ulterior motive

Ocular evidence was not only corroborated by recoveries effected on pointing out of accused persons at the time of their arrest but data retrieved from their laptop also strengthened claim of prosecution that accused were planning to do something extremely inhumane in the shape of terrorist attacks

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and maintained the same

High Court directed sentences to run concurrently instead of consecutively and the judgment of Trial Court was modified to that extent

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.