Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1312 (AP)

Gunja Yesu v. State of Telangana

2014-10-28

M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

body2014
ORDER M. Seetharama Murti, J. 1. This is a Criminal Petition under Sections 427 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused ('the convict prisoners' for brevity) seeking a direction that the sentences imposed on the two convict prisoners namely, Gunja Yesu S/o. Venkateswarlu and Makkela Nagaiah @ Nagaraju S/o. late Guravaiah in (i) C.C. No. 187/2006 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC (ii) C.C. No. 188/2006 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvuru, for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC (iii) C.C. No. 222/2006 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, for the offences punishable under Section 341 and 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC (iv) C.C. No. 458/2006 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sattupalli of Khammam for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC and (v) C.C. No. 459/2006 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC shall run concurrently with the life imprisonment awarded to the very same convict prisoners in S.C. No. 199/2008 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Judge, FTC), Khammam for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the convict prisoners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. I have carefully perused the material record. 3. The convict prisoners are stated to be the accused 2 and 3 in all the above cases including the Sessions Case. The convict prisoners were found guilty of and were convicted for the offences with which they stood charged and were sentenced to undergo substantive imprisonments in the five cases as stated in the table below: S.No. Case No. Provision/s of Law Term of Imprisonment 1. CC 187 of 2006 394 IPC 3 Years 2. CC 188 of 2006 411 IPC 3 Years 3. CC 222 of 2006 341 and 392 R/W 34 IPC 3 Years 4. CC 187 of 2006 394 IPC 3 Years 2. CC 188 of 2006 411 IPC 3 Years 3. CC 222 of 2006 341 and 392 R/W 34 IPC 3 Years 4. CC 458 of 2006 392 IPC 3 Years 5. CC 459 of 2006 392 IPC 3 Years In the above calendar cases, the benefit of set-off was also directed to be given to the convict prisoners. Thus, the convict prisoners were convicted and sentenced to undergo substantive sentences of imprisonments in five cases. Further, they both were also directed to serve sentences of life imprisonment in S.C. No. 199/2008 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Judge, FTC), Khammam for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute the facts urged on behalf of the convict prisoners herein. 4. Now the point for consideration is - 'Whether this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction and/or in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can direct that the sentences, which have been passed by different Courts against the convict prisoners, shall run concurrently with the imprisonments for life imposed against the accused in a Sessions Case, as provided under Section 427 of the Cr.P.C. though the said convictions and sentences have become final?' And, if so, whether the convict prisoners are entitled to the relief claimed? 5. POINT: 5. (a) The facts necessary for consideration are already stated supra, in detail. The learned counsel for the convict prisoners would submit that Section 427 Cr.P.C. provides for directing sentence awarded in the subsequent case to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in a previous case and that the High Court in exercise of its suo motu revisional power or in the exercise of its inherent power, can direct that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence already being served by a person who is convicted. The learned counsel for the convict prisoners would further submit that since one of the sentences imposed against the convict prisoners is life imprisonment and that the convict prisoners have to be in prison for their remainder of lives, at any rate, it is just and proper not to deny them the benefit provided under law. The learned counsel for the convict prisoners would further submit that since one of the sentences imposed against the convict prisoners is life imprisonment and that the convict prisoners have to be in prison for their remainder of lives, at any rate, it is just and proper not to deny them the benefit provided under law. Hence, he made a request that the sentences passed against the convict prisoners in the five calendar cases be directed to run concurrently with the sentences of life imprisonments imposed against them in the Sessions Case. It is settled law that there is no limitation for exercising the power and that this Court is having inherent power to give necessary directions as provided under Section 427 the Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases, to secure ends of justice. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court in V. Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. 1987 Crl. Law Journal 1621 and Itineni Linganna vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Warangal and another 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 366 (AP). In V. Venkateswarlu's case (supra), it was held as follows: "The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction suo motu or in exercise of its inherent power under Section482, can direct the sentences to run concurrently as provided under S. 427 Cr.P.C. even though the convictions and sentences that have been passed by the Additional Sessions Judges of different Sessions Divisions have become final." In Itineni Lingannas case (supra), it was held as follows: "It is well established by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that 'life imprisonment' means that the convict is required to undergo sentence for rest of his life. The question of commencement of sentence of various terms in respect of other offences, which are ordered to run concurrently on the expiry of the sentence of life imposed for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC does not simply arise, as any human being has only one span of life. That is exactly the reason behind the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. wherein, the subsequent sentence of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, is ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentence of imprisonment for life, which person is already undergoing. That is exactly the reason behind the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. wherein, the subsequent sentence of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, is ordered to run concurrently with the previous sentence of imprisonment for life, which person is already undergoing. When such subsequent sentence of imprisonment is made to run concurrently with the earlier sentence of life, there is absolutely no reason as to why the same shall not on an analogy of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. be extended in respect of different sentences awarded in the same case, like the present one so as to make them run concurrently with the life sentence." 5. (b) The consistent interpretation of the definition of the term 'life imprisonment' has been synonymous with the incarceration for whole of the remainder of a convict's life. If the convict prisoners have to spend the remainder of their life spans in jail, then there can be no question of their serving the sentences in calendar cases consecutively as the sentences in calendar cases cannot be carried out after the convicts serving the life sentences. Since one of the sentences which both the convict prisoners have to undergo is life imprisonment, there is no need to consider the aspect as to whether they both are professional/habitual offenders. As per sub-section (2) of Section 427 of the Cr.P.C., when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. In view of the legal position obtaining and the ratios laid down in the decisions cited supra and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the sentences imposed in the calendar cases mentioned in the table supra can be directed to run concurrently with the sentences of imprisonments for life imposed in the Sessions Case against the convict prisoners, by invoking the powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as such a course secures the ends of justice. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners. 6. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the petitioners. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed directing that the sentences passed against the convict prisoners/petitioners in the aforementioned calendar cases shall run concurrently with the sentences of imprisonment for life imposed against them in S.C. No. 199/2008 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Khammam for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. Petition allowed