1. Conviction for robbery under Sections 392 and 394 IPC — Appeal seeking direction for sentences in multiple criminal cases to run concurrently. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
VICKY @ VIKAS – Appellant
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRIMINALAPPEALNO. 208 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4201 of 2019)
Decided On : 31-01-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at expiration of imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced.
If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at expiration of imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced.
Subject
Criminal Law - Sentencing
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.427
GOLD CONTROL ACT: S.8
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.392, S.394, S.397, S.34, S.411, S.353, S.365, S.506
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT: S.138
GOLD CONTROL ACT: S.8
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.392, S.394, S.397, S.34, S.411, S.353, S.365, S.506
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT: S.138
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 427 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 392, 397, 411 IPC read with Section 34 – Concurrent running of sentences – If a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, such subsequent term of imprisonment would normally commence at expiration of imprisonment to which he was previously sentenced – Only in appropriate cases, considering facts of the case, court can make sentence run concurrently with an earlier sentence imposed – In present case, appellant is a young man with roots in his family – Appellant has already undergone 10 years of imprisonment – Probation Officer, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi had sent report stating family background and also that there is ample scope of improvement in behaviour of appellant and that he may be given a chance for reformation and reintegration with family and society – Family of appellant expressed positive attitude to be reunited with appellant and desired to live a normal social life – Appellant has full acceptance of his family and appellant has also shown keen interest and willingness to re-unite with them – This is a fit case for exercising discretion in directing sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently – Since appellant has a poor economic background, fine amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed on him each in two FIRs set aside and appellant need not to undergo default sentence of imprisonment – This order to run sentence of imprisonment concurrently has been made in peculiar facts and circumstances of case and illness of appellant’s mother and same may not be quoted as precedent in other cases. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against impugned judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1496 of 2013, whereby while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, the High Court also dismissed his application to direct sentences awarded to him to run concurrently.
Findings of the Court:
Considering the report of the Probation Officer, illness of mother of the appellant, his family background, facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this is a fit case for exercising discretion in directing sentence of imprisonment to run concurrently.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Anish Kumar Gupta, Arachana Preeti Gupta, Puneet Sheoran, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Chandra Shekhar Suman, Rajender Kumar Singh, Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Deepshikha Bharti, Harsha, Rita Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Anish Kumar Gupta, Arachana Preeti Gupta, Puneet Sheoran, Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Chandra Shekhar Suman, Rajender Kumar Singh, Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Deepshikha Bharti, Harsha, Rita Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought concurrent running of sentences across multiple convictions; High Court opposed based on the habitual nature of the offender and gravity of offences. (Para 2 , 5 )
3. While distinct transactions normally warrant consecutive sentences under Section 427 CrPC, judicial discretion may be exercised considering the offender's family background and reformation potential. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Under Section 427 CrPC, subsequent sentences run consecutively unless the court exercises discretion to order concurrent sentences based on sound judicial principles and specific case facts. (Para 10 , 15 , 16 )
5. Sentences in multiple FIRs ordered to run concurrently, fines set aside, and appellant ordered to be released forthwith. (Para 20 )
6. What is the general rule under Section 427 CrPC when an offender already undergoing imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction?
The subsequent imprisonment normally commences at the expiration of the previous sentence unless the court specifically directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous one. (Para 10 )
7. How does the single transaction rule affect the running of sentences?
Convictions arising out of a single transaction generally justify concurrent sentences, whereas distinct and different transactions typically warrant consecutive sentences. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. On what basis can a court exercise discretion to order concurrent sentences for distinct offences?
Discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles, considering the nature of the offences, the facts and circumstances of each case, and the potential for the offender's reformation. (Para 15 , 19 )
9. Does a direction for concurrent running of sentences apply to default sentences for non-payment of fines?
No, the benefit of concurrent running of sentences applies only to substantive sentences; Section 427 CrPC does not permit concurrent running of default sentences for non-payment of fines. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.1496 of 2013, whereby while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, the High Court also dismissed his application to direct sentences awarded to him to run concurrently.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.04.2011, at about 10:25 PM, the appellant along with co-accused Yamin @ Sohail committed robbery upon the complainant Israr and took away Rs.2700/- and the complainant’s mobile phone by inflicting injuries on him with a knife. FIR No.67/2011 was registered against the accused for the occurrence on 28.04.2011 at 10.25 PM. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. In the trial, charges were framed against the appellant and the co-accused under Sections 392, 394, 397 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 392 and 394 IPC while acquitting him of the charge under Section 397 IPC. The trial court sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence of one month in case of non-payment of fine and clarified that this sentence will run consecutively to the sentence imposed on the appellant in FIR No.64/2011 under Sections 392, 397, 411 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
5. In appeal, vide the impugned judgment, the High Court opined that the conviction recorded by the trial court is based upon fair appraisal of evidence and warrants no interference. As to the prayer of the appellant directing sentences to run concurrently, the High Court observed that the appellant is involved in sixteen criminal cases, he is a habitual hard core criminal and in the instant case, not only was the victim robbed of valuable articles but also inflicted with grievous injuries on his body. The High Court thus rejected the prayer that both the sentences in FIR No.64/2011 and FIR No.67/2011 to run concurrently.
6. By order dated 26.04.2019, we had already held that we are not inclined to interfere with the verdict of conviction of the appellant and also the quantum of sentence imposed upon him. The instant appeal is confined to the appellant’s prayer seeking concurrent running of sentences imposed upon him.
7. The appellant faced trial in various cases and has been convicted in number of cases. Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused has collected the details from the Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail-13, Mandoli. By order dated 13.12.2019, we have called for details of the cases pertaining to the appellant from the Director General (Prison). Accordingly, the Superintendent, Central Jail No.13 has sent the status report containing the details of the cases in which the appellant is convicted and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him and the period of sentence undergone by him.
| Case No. | Details of Court Date of Conviction | Conviction and Sentence | Sentence undergone as well as pending and in which cases |
| FIR No.64/2011 PS – Bhalswa Dairy | ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi Date of conviction - 02.06.2012 | Section 394/397 IPC Sentenced to R.I. for 10 years + Rs.10,000/- fine | Sentence completed (Sentence in default of fine is remaining) |
| FIR No.67/2011 SC No.58/2011 | ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi Date of conviction – 28.07.2012 | Section 392/394 IPC Sentence to R.I. for 7 years + Rs.10,000/- fine in default for one month | Currently serving sentence. As of 11.12.2019, he has undergone 01 year 04 months and 28 days. During trial, he was inside for 01 year 02 months and 17 days from 10.05.2011 to 27.07.2012. |
| FIR No.263/2009 PS – Janakpuri | CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Date of conviction – 09.09.2013 | ||
