Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1540 (RAJ)

Satish Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2012-07-11

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Satish alias Anil Kumar alias Lal Bahadur alias Khanbhau, has approached this Court with the limited prayer, namely, that the sentences awarded to him in four different cases should be directed to run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide judgment dated 19.4.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 397, 323 I.P.C., Section 3/25 of Arms Act. He was sentenced to ten years of simple imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof he was directed to further undergo two months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 397 I.P.C. For offence under Section 323 I.P.C., the petitioner was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act, the petitioner was sentenced for five years and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and directed to further undergo two months' additional imprisonment in default thereof.Similarly, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 341, 393, 394 I.P.C., vide judgment dated 7.8.2004 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangria. He was sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 341 I.P.C., and further imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/-. He was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and further directed to undergo one month of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 393 I.P.C. He was further sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and directed to further undergo one month of simple imprisonment for offence under Section 394 I.P.C. 3. Likewise, vide judgment dated 5.4.2005, the Judicial Magistrate First Class Pilibanga convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 341 and 382 I.P.C. and sentenced him to one month of simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 382 I.P.C., the petitioner was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and was directed to further undergo three months simple imprisonment in default thereof. 4. For offence under Section 382 I.P.C., the petitioner was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and was directed to further undergo three months simple imprisonment in default thereof. 4. Similarly, vide judgment dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bikaner, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 382, 328, 342, 323 I.P.C.; for offences under Sections 382 and 328 I.P.C., he was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and was directed to further undergo one month of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offences under Sections 342 and 323 I.P.C., he was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/-, and directed to further undergo one month of simple imprisonment in default thereof. 5. In addition to above convictions, vide judgment dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Nawasahar, Punjab, the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 120-B I.P.C. For offence under Section 302 I.P.C., he was sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and also directed to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., he was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and directed to further undergo two months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.Thus, the petitioner has been awarded different terms of imprisonments in five different criminal cases. It is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the judgments of the four Courts of Rajasthan, he is asked to serve the sentences consecutively. In case the sentences are directed to run consecutively, he would have to suffer a term of more than life imprisonment. Therefore, his prayer before this Court that the sentences awarded by different Courts of Rajasthan should be directed to run concurrently, rather than consecutively.In order to buttress his contention that this Court has ample power to direct the sentences to run concurrently, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Vimal Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 789 , and on the case of Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1227 . 6. 6. In all fairness, the learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the prayer of the petitioner, and in the opinion of this Court, rightly so. 7. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that punishment should commensurate with the offence. Moreover, the liberty of the citizen should not be compromised in a revengeful manner. Since, the reformative theory of punishment rules the field, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping a person incarcerated for a long time. 8. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the sentences awarded to the petitioner by the above four Courts of Rajasthan should run concurrently. Therefore, this Court directs that the sentences awarded to the petitioner to the extent awarded by (1) Additional Sessions Judge Sangaria, vide judgment dated 19.4.2004 in Sessions Case No. 17/2003, (2) ACJM Sangaria, vide judgment dated 7.8.2004 in Case No. 345/2003 (3) Judicial Magistrate, First Class Pilibanga, vide judgment dated 5.4.2005 in Case No. 482/2003 and (4) Additional Sessions dge, (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner, vide judgment dated 10.10.2005 in Se s Case No. 163/2003, shall run concurrently and not consecutively.This petition is, hereby, disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******