Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2434 (RAJ)

Raju Das v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-13

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant Raju Das who has suffered conviction under two distinct and separate offences tried differently and in respect of which he has been awarded sentences differently. 2. The applicant was tried on the allegation of commission of offences under Sections 302, 201 & 397/34 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 85/2001. By a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2021, the applicant was held guilty for commission of above offences and was awarded life sentence. 3. The applicant was also subjected to trial in Sessions Trial No. 91/2001 in connection with commission of offences under Sections 120B, 302/34, 397, 392 & 412 IPC in respect of another offence, distinct and separate from the offence for which he was earlier convicted in Sessions Trial No. 85/2001. In the subsequent trial, the applicant was held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 120B, 397 & 201 IPC and vide judgment dated 15.04.2002, he was again awarded with imprisonment for life. The applicant is presently undergoing sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him under judgment dated 04.10.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 85/2001. 4. This misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the applicant for the relief that in view of the provisions contained in Section 427 (2) Cr.P.C., it may be declared that two sentences of life imprisonment awarded to the applicant would run concurrently and not consecutively. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Zahid v. State, through NCB (Criminal Appeal No.1457/2021) to submit that though in that the Supreme Court examined the provisions under Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. and held that in cases where a person has already been awarded sentence of life imprisonment, if he is subsequently convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment in another case, by operation of law, both the sentences have to run concurrently. Therefore, the misc. application may be allowed with a direction to the respondents that both the sentences shall run concurrently and grant him all the benefits to which he would be entitled treating the sentences having run concurrently. 6. Therefore, the misc. application may be allowed with a direction to the respondents that both the sentences shall run concurrently and grant him all the benefits to which he would be entitled treating the sentences having run concurrently. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner has been convicted under two different offences and sentenced to life imprisonment, therefore, he is required to serve sentences in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 427 Cr.P.C. and appropriate directions may be issued. 7. Indisputably, the applicant has been convicted in two different and distinct offences and has been awarded life imprisonment in both the cases. On that undisputed position, in our considered opinion, it is a case where Section 427(2) Cr.P.C would be squarely attracted. The relevant provision contained in Section 427 is reproduced as below:- "427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) 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." 8. While Sub-section (1) deals with the situation where a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, Sub-section (2), which is in the nature of exception to Sub-section (1), deals with a case where a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is subsequently sentenced for a conviction to imprisonment for life. In such cases, the law clearly provides that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 9. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In such cases, the law clearly provides that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence. 9. This aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In one of the decisions in the case of Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Anr [ 1991(4) SCC 304 ], the provisions contained in Section 427 Cr.P.C were interpreted as below: - "8. Sub-section (1) of Section 427 CrPC provides for the situation when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or life imprisonment. In other words, Sub-section (1) of Section 427 CrPC deals with an offender who while undergoing sentence for a fixed term is subsequently convicted to imprisonment for a fixed term or for life. In such a situation, the first sentence, being for a fixed term, expires on a definite date which is known when the subsequent conviction is made. Sub- section (1) says that in such a situation, the date of expiry of the first sentence which the offender is undergoing being known, ordinarily the subsequent sentence would commence at the expiration of the first term of imprisonment unless the Court directs the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence. Obviously, in cases covered by Sub-section (1) where the sentence is for a fixed term, the subsequent sentence can be consecutive unless directed to run concurrently. Sub-section (2), on the other hand, provides for an offender "already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life" who is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or for life. It is well- settled since the decision of this Court in Gopal Vinayaka Godse and reiterated in Maru Ram that imprisonment for life is a sentence for the remainder of the life of the offender unless the remaining sentence is commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority. This being so at the stage of sentencing by the Court on a subsequent conviction, the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life must be understood in this manner and, therefore, there can be no question of a subsequent sentence of imprisonment for a term or for life running consecutively which is the general rule laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 427. As rightly contended by Shri Garg, and not disputed by Shri Lalit, the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life being understood to mean as a sentence to serve the remainder of life in prison unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority and a person having only one life span, the sentence on a subsequent conviction of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life can only be superimposed to the earlier life sentence and certainly not added to it since extending the life span of the offender or for that matter anyone is beyond human might. It is this obvious situation which is stated in Sub-section (2) of Section 427 since the general rule enunciated in Sub-section (1) thereof is that without the Court's direction the subsequent sentence will not run concurrently but consecutively. The only situation in which no direction of the Court is needed to make the subsequent sentence run concurrently with the previous sentence is provided for in Sub-section (2) which has been enacted to avoid any possible controversy based on Sub-section (1) if there be no express direction of the Court to that effect. Sub-section (2) is in the nature of an exception to the general rule enacted in Sub-section (1) of Section 427 that a sentence on subsequent conviction commences on expiry of the first sentence unless the Court directs it to run concurrently. The meaning and purpose of Sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 427 and the object of enacting Sub-section (2) is, therefore, clear." 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C was treated to be an exception to Sub-section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C and their Lordships in the Supreme Court further observed that the earlier sentence of imprisonment for life being understood to mean as a sentence to serve the remainder of life in prison unless commuted or remitted by the appropriate authority and a person having only one life span, the sentence on a subsequent conviction of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life can only be superimposed to the earlier life sentence and certainly not added to it, since extending the life span of the offender or for that matter anyone is beyond human might. It is this obvious situation which is stated in Sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C since the general rule enunciated in Sub-section (1) thereof is that without the Court's direction, the subsequent sentence will not run concurrently but consecutively. 11. The aforesaid settled legal position was again noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Zahid v. State through NCB (supra). Though on facts it was not a case where a previous sentence was for life imprisonment followed by subsequent sentence also of life imprisonment however, the statutory scheme contained in Section 427(2) Cr.P.C was also considered by their Lordships. Relying upon the judgment of Ranjit Singh's case (supra) it was held as below: - "8.2 While considering the issue in the present appeal Section 427 of Cr.PC is required to be referred to which reads as under:- 427. Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence. (1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence: Provided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an order under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing such sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the making of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately. (2) 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. 12. Therefore on a fair reading of Section 427 of Cr.PC, when a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such imprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced. Meaning thereby the sentences in both the conviction shall run consecutively. However, there is an exception to that, namely unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. There is one another exception. Meaning thereby the sentences in both the conviction shall run consecutively. However, there is an exception to that, namely unless the Court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. There is one another exception. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 427 of Cr.PC 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. Therefore, in aforesaid two cases only the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence. Otherwise the subsequent sentence shall run consecutively and the imprisonment in subsequent sentence shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced." 13. In view of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Sub-section (2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. that where a person whose previous sentence is of life imprisonment and the subsequent sentence is also of life imprisonment, both have to run concurrently, the present misc. application is allowed. 14. It is declared that the life sentences which have been awarded to the applicant in Sessions Trial No.85/2001 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2001 and in Sessions Trial No.91/2001 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.04.2002 shall both be treated as having run concurrently. The applicant accordingly shall be considered for parole or for such other matters including remission of sentence treating two sentences having run concurrently. The respondent-authorities shall accordingly pass appropriate order in that regard, as and when eventuality so arises.