Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 355 (PNJ)

Suraj Pal v. State Of Haryana

2005-03-07

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Suraj Pal, who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life in District Jail, Rohtak, under Sections 396/397 I.P.C. in case FIR No. 4 dated 6.1.1976 registered at Police Station Nuh, District Gurgaon, has filed this petition under Section 482 read with Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for issuing direction to run his two sentences in two separate trials concurrently. 2. Petitioner, who is resident of District Mathura (Uttar Pradesh), was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years under Section 399 I.P.C. and 3 years under Section 402 I.P.C. by judgment dated 6.9.1979, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Mathura. The said conviction and sentence was upheld by the Allahabad High Court in appeal by judgment dated 20.3.1997. Subsequently, the petitioner was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 396/395/397/412 I.P.C. by judgment and order dated 11.8.1981 and 12.8.1981, respectively, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, in case FIR No. 4 dated 6.1.1976 registered at Police Station Nuh, District Gurgaon. In the said case, the petitioner along with his co-accused was found guilty to have committed murder of two persons while committing dacoity and caused grievous hurt to other persons. The said conviction and sentence has also been upheld by this Court and then by the Honble Apex Court. The petitioner was admitted in jail on 12.8.1996, after dismissal of his appeal by the Honble Apex Court. 3. By this petition, the petitioner is praying that his aforesaid two sentences be directed to run concurrently. No such prayer was made by the petitioner at the time of awarding the second sentence. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even though a prayer was not made at the time of awarding of second sentence, but this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code can direct running of the sentences concurrently and in this case, there is no reason for denying this benefit to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner put reliance upon the decision of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 741 and Ram Dhan v. State of Haryana, (Crl. Misc. No. 16858-M of 2003). 5. Counsel for the petitioner put reliance upon the decision of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 741 and Ram Dhan v. State of Haryana, (Crl. Misc. No. 16858-M of 2003). 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State submitted that case of the petitioner does not fall under sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Code, where the Court is bound to order running of two sentences concurrently. He submitted that case of the petitioner falls under sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Code, where it is discretion of the Court to order for running of two sentences concurrently, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the instant case is not a case where this discretionary benefit should be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, who was earlier convicted and sentenced by Additional District Judge-I, Mathura under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. has committed the subsequent crime in a brutal manner. While committing dacoity of innocent citizen, he murdered him and his wife and caused grievous injuries to their children in the night. In view of these facts, counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner should not be granted the benefit of discretionary relief under Section 482 of the Code, particularly when he did not move such an application before the trial Court. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not been able to made out a case for issuing direction to run his aforesaid two sentences concurrently. Undisputedly, his case falls under sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Code, under which it is discretion of the Court to order for running the two sentences concurrently, by keeping in view facts and circumstances of each case. Undisputedly, his case falls under sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Code, under which it is discretion of the Court to order for running the two sentences concurrently, by keeping in view facts and circumstances of each case. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sher Singh v. State, 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 696 and by this Court in Joginder Singhs case (supra) this Court can exercise the discretionary powers under Section 482 of the Code for ordering two sentences concurrently, even if the said discretion provided under sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Code was not exercised by the trial Court or the Appellate Court and even though the conviction has become final. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the crime was committed, I am not inclined to exercise the discretion of this Court for issuing direction to run the aforesaid two sentences, awarded to the petitioner, concurrently. The judgment of theis Court in Ram Dhans case (supra) is distinguishable.Dismissed.