Ramachandra Reddy vs State of Karnataka

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Kar) 1260

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Ramachandra Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.3359 of 2022 c/w Criminal Petition No.2096 of 2021
Decided On : 08-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nanjunde Gowda.
For the Respondent: Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 394 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 31 - Conviction for murder and robbery - Petitioners seeking sentence to run concurrently - The trial court's order did not specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively, impacting the petitioners' eligibility for remission after serving twenty years. The court found it necessary to specify concurrent running due to established legal principles that life sentences cannot run consecutively. (Paras 6 and 36)

(B) Sentence - Directing concurrent sentences - The court held that the lack of a directive in the original sentencing order rendered the petitioners ineligible for remission despite having served more than twenty years, reasoning that Section 31 mandates clarity on whether multiple sentences shall run concurrently. (Paras 35 and 36)

(C) Legal Principles - Prior case law is attached, establishing that sentences of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively as per the interpretations of Section 31 of CrPC. The court reiterates the necessity of clarity in sentencing to prevent irrational outcomes regarding life sentences. (Various Cases cited)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were convicted on November 25, 2010, for murder and robbery, sentenced to life imprisonment and additional terms. They have been incarcerated since September 22, 2002, and sought clarification that their sentences run concurrently to be eligible for remission.

Findings of Court:
The court directs the sentences to be served concurrently, affirming that life sentences need to align with the doctrinal need for coherence in punishment denoting human life span limitations.

Issues: The core issue is whether the original sentencing order failed to indicate the concurrent nature of sentences and how this omission affected remission eligibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that specified concurrent sentencing is mandated to align with principles that prevent serving multiple life sentences, reiterating jurisprudential clarity on this matter as essential in sentencing.

Result: Criminal petitions allowed; sentences to run concurrently.

Table of Content
1. conviction details of petitioners. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments regarding concurrent sentences. (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
3. life sentences must run concurrently. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 , 26)

ORDER :

(M. Nagaprasanna, J.)

The petitioners in these petitions are before this Court seeking a prayer that the order of conviction dated 25.11.2010, passed in S.C.No.2/2007, by the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, for different offences to run concurrently. Petitioners are convicted-accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. Heard Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in both the cases.

3. Brief facts of the case that leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

On 03.09.2002, as crime comes to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 02, 201, 120B, r/w. 34 of the IPC. The concerned Court took cognizance of the offences in C.C.No.442/2002 and after the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the Sessions Judge registers a case in S.C.No.45/2003. The Sessions Court in terms of its order dated 09.12.2010, convicts accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners herein and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence punishable under Section 3 02 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and payment of Rs.50,000/- each and in default to pay fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 3 94 of the IPC. The petitioners are now knocking at the doors of this Court contending that they are in prison since 22.09.2002, which is more than twenty years as of now and are entitled to seek remission or premature release in terms of the Rules and guidelines. What is coming in the way is the absence of a direction by the concerned Court that the sentences should run concurrently. Therefore, notwithstanding the petitioners completing twenty years in prison are not entitled to seek remission on the ground that the sentence for offence punishable under Section 3 94 of the IPC, is in operation.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondent.

5. The issue in the lis is in the absence of a direction in the order of sentence, not indicating whether the offences would run concurrently or separately and whether the relief could be granted to the petitioners.

6. Before considering the issue qua the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to notice the line of law as is laid down by the constitutional Courts in the following cases:

"3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has brought to our notice that the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following order:

(i) The accused Ramesh Chilwal alias Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No.580 of 2004, Special Sessions Triable Case No.28 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC and sentence of the rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh). In default for the payment of fine, he shall also serve a simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of this rupees one lakh, Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) is awarded as compensation to the family of the deceased.

(ii) The accused Ramesh Chilwal alias Bambayya is convicted in Case Crime No.580 of 2004, Special Sessions Triable Case No.28 of 2005 under Sections 2 /3[3(1)], GANGSTERS ACT and sentence for the rigorous imprisonment of 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand). In default for the payment of fine, he shall