Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Section 427(1) of CrPC, Jasjit Singh Bedi, J., opined that in the present case, petitioner sought the concurrent running of sentences as per Section 427(1) of CrPC. However, there was absolutely no justifiable reason for the present Court to exercise its discretionary power under Section 427(1) of CrPC as the offences in each case were completely different and did not arise out of the same transaction and were also heinous offences. If in every case, the Court ought to exercise its powers under Section 427(1) of CrPC, then there would be multiple convictions for varying periods of time by different Courts for different offences. Further, Courts would be obligated to order concurrent running of sentences which would defeat the very purpose of imposition of a sentence which must be not only deterrent in nature but also befitting the crime.
Thus, the Court opined that in cases where a person was a serial offender and that too for committing heinous crimes, the Courts would do well in not wanting to exercise their powers under Section 427(1) of CrPC to order concurrent running of sentences. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present appeal.
Background
In the present case, petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the cases arising out of the three FIRs. First FIR dated 24-11-1999 was registered under Sections 307, 341 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Second FIR dated 22-09-2000 was registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and third FIR dated 01-10-2001 was registered under Sections 14,149, 302, 307, 120B of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Petitioner filed an appeal in first FIR which was still pending adjudication. Further vide judgment dated 12-02-2017 passed by this Court, the sentence awarded in the trial emanating out of third FIR was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence awarded in the trial emanating out of second FIR.
The present petition had been filed seeking the concurrent running of sentences in the conviction recorded in the trial emanating out of the first and second FIR.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that Section 427(2) of CrPC was in the nature of a positive mandate to the Court that it should in all cases order sentences to run concurrently in a case where the first sentence was of life and second sentence was for a fixed term or for life. Further regarding Section 427(1) of CrPC, the discretion was with the Court to order the sentences in two cases to run concurrently in those cases where the first conviction was for a sentence other than life, as in the present case. The Court opined that in the present case, regarding, second and third FIR, this Court had exercised its powers under Section 427(2) of the CrPC and ordered the sentences would run concurrently. However, in the present case, petitioner sought the concurrent running of sentences as per Section 427(1) of CrPC.
The Court opined that there was absolutely no justifiable reason for the present Court to exercise its discretionary power under Section 427(1) of CrPC as the offences in each case were completely different and did not arise out of the same transaction and were also heinous offences. If the argument was to be accepted that in every case, the Court ought to exercise its powers under Section 427(1) of CrPC, then there would be multiple convictions for varying periods of time by different Courts for different offences. Further, Courts would be obligated to order concurrent running of sentences which would defeat the very purpose of imposition of a sentence which must be not only deterrent in nature but must be befitting the crime.
The Court opined that “a sentencing policy which is unusually mild and sympathetic in its operation would have a disastrous effect on society and would do more harm than good to public confidence in the efficacy of law.” Therefore, it was the Court’s duty to award appropriate sentence with respect to the nature of the offence. Thus, the Court opined that in cases where a person was a serial offender and that too for committing heinous crimes, the Courts would do well in not wanting to exercise their powers under Section 427(1) of CrPC to order concurrent running of sentences. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present appeal.
[Brij Mohan v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 2373, decided on 15-04-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: V.S. Rana, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, Asstt. A.G., Haryana
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
