2021 Supreme(SC) 281

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR & ANR. - APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - RESPONDENT(S)
Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2021 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 3549 of 2018)
Decided on : 25-05-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Section 31(1) Cr.P.C. vests complete discretion with Court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently having regard to nature of offences and surrounding factors.
(2) Court of first instance is under legal obligation while awarding multiple sentences to specify in clear terms as to whether they would run concurrently or consecutively.
(3) Omission to state order of consecutive running cannot ipso facto lead to concurrent running of sentences.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 31(1) – Running of sentence – Section 31(1) Cr.P.C. vests complete discretion with Court to order sentences for two or more offences at one trial to run concurrently having regard to nature of offences and surrounding factors – Even though it cannot be said that consecutive running is normal rule but, it is also not laid down that multiple sentences must run concurrently – There cannot be any straitjacket approach in matter of exercise of such discretion by Court; but this discretion has to be judiciously exercised with reference to nature of offence/s committed and facts and circumstances of case – However, if sentences (other than life imprisonment) are not provided to run concurrently, one would run after other, in such order as Court may direct – Court of first instance is under legal obligation while awarding multiple sentences to specify in clear terms as to whether they would run concurrently or consecutively – If Court of first instance does not specify concurrent running of sentences, inference, primarily, is that Court intended such sentences to run consecutively, though, Court of first instance ought not to leave this matter for deduction at later stage. (Paras 10.2, 11 and 12)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Kidnapping and rape – Conviction and sentence – Omission to state whether sentences awarded to accused would run concurrently or would run consecutively essentially operates against accused because, unless stated so by Court, multiple sentences run consecutively – Omission to state order of consecutive running cannot ipso facto lead to concurrent running of sentences – In a given case, after such trial for multiple offences, if accused is convicted and awarded different punishments, concurrent running thereof may be provided depending on facts and relevant surrounding factors – Principle related with ‘single transaction’ cannot be imported for dealing with question at hand – Orders passed by this Court, for striking a just balance in matter of sentencing after reversing acquittal, cannot be applied to present case where conviction recorded by Court of first instance was not even challenged, and has attained finality – However, requiring appellants to serve a total term of 22 years in prison would be highly disproportionate to the actual punishment they need to suffer in this case – In exercise of powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India, punishment awarded to appellants modified in the manner that maximum period of imprisonment to be served by them in relation to offences in question shall be 14 years and not beyond – This order of modification is passed only in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case – However, requirement of payment of fine and default stipulations, as applicable to appellant No.1 in terms of order of High Court and to appellant No.2 in terms of order of Trial Court, shall remain intact – In default in payment of fine, defaulter-appellant shall undergo respective default sentences consecutively and in the order they have been imposed, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(1), IPC. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 and 19.1)

Facts of the case:

Appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) IPC. Scope of this appeal is restricted to the question of sentence and appellants herein, after their conviction of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, have already undergone 13 years and 2 months of imprisonment.

Findings of Court:

Requirement of payment of fine and the default stipulations, as applicable to the appellant No.1 in terms of the order of High Court and to the appellant No.2 in terms of the order of the Trial Court, shall remain intact. In default in payment of fine, the defaulter-appellant shall undergo respective default sentences consecutively and in the order they have been imposed, for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(1) IPC.

Result : Appeal Partly allowed.