SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, R. Banumathi, JJ.
O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2387 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2487/2014)
Decided On : 11-11-2014
(2012) 11 SCC 629 – Relied upon
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31 – Section 31 leaves full discretion with Court to order sentences to run concurrently – It is not that consecutive running of sentences is normal rule and concurrent running is exception – If however, concurrent running is not ordered, one sentence may run after the other, in such order as the Court may direct. (Para 21)
(2012) 11 SCC 629; (2013) 7 SCC 211 – Relied upon
(1988) 4 SCC 183; (2014) 2 SCC 153; 2014 (8) SCALE 96 – Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31 – Trial court ordering sentences u/s 498-A and 306 IPC top run consecutively – High Court affirming – Courts below thus declining to exercise discretion to order concurrent running of sentences – Supreme Court normally does not interfere in such cases – Appellant working in Gulf countries use to visit India only once in two years for short period and taking active role in mediation with deceased – In view of these facts sentences ordered to run concurrently. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
It is alleged that due to torture and ill-treatment of her in-laws, the deceased committed suicide.
The trial court convicted the appellant/1st accused u/s 498A and 306 IPC. Accused 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 498A IPC. Substantive sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
The High Court confirmed the conviction and also the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon all the accused.
Finding of the Court:
Courts below ought to have ordered concurrent running of the sentences.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 910/2006 by which the High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the appellant/1st accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and also the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.
3. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused married Lillikutty and their marriage was solemnized on 11.2.1988 and they continued their stay in House bearing No. MP. VIII/84 of Karulayai Amsom along with other accused, who are the father, mother and brother of the appellant. The allegation levelled is that in the matrimonial house, the appellant/1st accused and other accused ill-treated and tortured Lillikutty, compelling her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by committing suicide. During the marital life, Lillikutty had a premature delivery. When she became pregnant again in 1993, it is alleged that A-1 provided her with some tablets and Lillikutty had a miscarriage. During her marital life Lillikutty delivered a child who did not live long. On 23.2.1996 Lillikutty poured kerosene oil on herself and also drank some, which was later cleared away. On 23.2.1996, a mediation talk had been scheduled and PW-1 and the relatives of Lillikutty were also to attend the mediation talks but when the meeting was so scheduled, Lillikutty committed suicide by hanging. On the first information by PW-1, a neighbour of the accused, law was set in motion. Initially FIR was registered for unnatural death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and on subsequent complaint, the same was altered to one for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. PW-4 conducted autopsy and submitted the post-mortem report. PW-14, investigating officer, had taken up the investigation and seized the documents and material objects and examined the witnesses and laid the charge sheet against the appellant and other accused. In the trial court, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-25 were marked and MOs 1 to 18 were identified. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances brought out in evidence against them.
4. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant/1st accused under Section 498A IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of one year. For the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the trial court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment of three years. The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run consecutively. Accused 2 to 4 were convicted under Section 498A IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default clause of one year. The High Court confirmed the conviction and also the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon all the accused.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant/1st accused has preferred this appeal. This Court issued notice only on the limited question as to whether the sentence can be made to run concurrently, instead of running consecutively. This Court by order dated 18.7.2014 observed that Section 31 Cr.P.C. was not noticed by this Court in Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad & Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183 and referred the matter to be considered by a larger Bench in order to settle the law and thus, the matter is before us. The order of Reference is as follows:
“The petitioner herein was concurrently convicted for offences under Section 498A and Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 7 years respectively on the above-mentioned two counts apart from paying certain amounts of fine, the detai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.