JUDGMENT 1. - Two letters have been received from Sukhdev Singh. These letters have been treated as letter petitions by this Court and have been registered as two separate petitions. Since the same prayer has been made in both these petitions, the petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 307, 397, 392, 342, 120B and Section 3/25 Arms Act in three separate trials, and although he has been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment in each of the trial, in case his sentence are not directed to run concurrently, he will have to serve more than 28 years' of rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, he has prayed before this Court that this sentences may be directed to run concurrently rather than consecutively. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Vimal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789 and on the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Assistant Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahemdabad & Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 183 . 3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that according to Section 427 Cr.P.C. in case a person has been convicted and sentenced in one trial and in cases he were to be convicted and sentenced in another trial, subsequently, the sentences shall run consecutively and not concurrently. the Bar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the Bar. 5. The purpose of imprisonment is not only to incarcerate the accused person within four walls of the jail; the purpose is to reform the convict. Further, a sentence of imprisonment has to commensurate with the offence. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 397, 392, 342, 120B and Section 3/25 Arms Act in three different cases. However, in case the sentences were not to run concurrently, the petitioner would have to serve a total of twenty eight years and six months. If life imprisonment is taken as a term of 14 years, apparently the petitioner would be sentenced to a term longer than life imprisonment. However, in case the sentences were not to run concurrently, the petitioner would have to serve a total of twenty eight years and six months. If life imprisonment is taken as a term of 14 years, apparently the petitioner would be sentenced to a term longer than life imprisonment. The offences under Sections 307, 397, 392, 342, 120B and Section 3/25 Arms Act are not so grave that they would warrant a sentence of more than life imprisonment. Therefore, although Section 427 Cr.P.C. directs that the sentences should run consecutively, but Section 427 also bestows a discretionary power on the Court to direct that the sentences should run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 6. The aim of imprisoning a person is not merely to dump him in a jail. The aim is equally to reform him during the period of incarceration so that he may be brought back into the society as a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen. Seven years is long enough time to reform a person. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner beyond seven years would not serve any fruitful purpose. Moreover, the Courts cannot be ignorant of the fact that the jails are overcrowded. Therefore, taking a holistic view, this Court directs that the sentences awarded to the petitioner by ACJM No. 3, Nohar in Case No. 381/2005 vide judgment dated 1.9.2006, Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Dholpur vide judgment dated 12.5.2009 and by Addl. Sessions Judge, Mogha in Sessions Case No. 13/2008 respectively vide judgment dated 2.10.2009, shall run concurrently, rather than consecutively.Hence, these petitions are, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******