Whether the petitioner who has been convicted and directed to undergo a term sentence in a previous trial is entitled for a benefit of running the said sentence concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment awarded in a subsequent trial? Answering to this question, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has clarified that since the petitioner was awarded with term sentences and a sentence of life imprisonment respectively in two different trials, in the absence of any direction for running both these sentences concurrently, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of Section 427(1) and certainly not under Section 427(2) of CrPC.
Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that when a person already serving a life sentence is convicted again and sentenced to imprisonment (or further life imprisonment), the subsequent sentence must run concurrently with the previous life sentence. This provision prevents the infinite stacking of life sentences, ensuring they are served simultaneously, unlike Section 427(1) which offers discretion for fixed-term sentences.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to derive the benefit under Section 427(2) of CrPC, and he will have to first undergo the term sentences and on its expiry, to undergo the sentence of life imprisonment, added the High Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde observed that sub-section (1) of Section 427 of CrPC deals with a person who, while undergoing a sentence for a fixed term, is subsequently convicted to imprisonment for a fixed term or for life. In such a scenario, the subsequent sentence would commence on the expiry of the first term of imprisonment unless the Court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. Conversely, sub-section (2) of Section 427 provides for a convict who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life and is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or for life, wherein the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence.
The Bench noted that the power to direct the order in which sentences will run is unquestionable, and a Court can legitimately direct that a prisoner shall first undergo the term sentence before the commencement of his life sentence. Further, it reiterated the general rule that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers, and cases decided by different judgments, concurrent sentences cannot be awarded under Section 427 without a specific direction by the court.
The Bench also emphasized that whether a prisoner is entitled to run term sentences and life imprisonment concurrently depends on the gruesome and brutal nature of the offence committed. The Bench said that in the previous crime, the petitioner kidnapped and committed rape on a minor girl, and in the subsequent crime, the petitioner committed forcible sexual intercourse with a minor girl aged 6 years and 9 months and murdered her by strangulation. This aspect was crucial in determining the entitlement to concurrent running of sentences.
Briefly, the petitioner was tried in Sessions Case for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, and 506 of the IPC, and was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for offences under Sections 363 and 376 of IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 506 of IPC, with all sentences directed to run concurrently. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against this conviction.
Subsequently, the petitioner was tried in another Sessions Case for offences punishable under Sections 302, 363, 364, 376, and 201 of IPC, and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, along with rigorous imprisonment for varying terms for the other offences. This judgment was confirmed by the High Court. The petitioner, having undergone more than 19 years of imprisonment, filed a petition seeking a mandamus to treat the sentences awarded in both trials as running concurrently in terms of Section 427(2) of the CrPC.
Appearances:
Advocate Kiran D. Jadhav, for the Petitioner
APP P.K. Lakhotiya, for the Respondent/ State
